Ive been questioning myself lately about why I keep banging on in this thread, and I reckon Formerguests posts sums it up nicely in one sentence.
The thought held by some that you cant vote no, with a clear conscience, for sound reasons and care about indigenous people is incredibly narrow minded and disgusting IMO. If Im being honest, I actually think that most that spout this line dont believe it, they just cycnically realise that the thinly cloaked threat of implied racism will cower the plebs into the correct line.
As Ive said before , I genuinely believe that the majority of people on both sides of the argument have good intentions and reasons for their thoughts and beliefs. I know that people voting Yes are voting Yes because they see it as the best (and for some the only) way to help indigenous people. Im voting No and I know that I still want to help indigenous people and I dont believe that voting No to the Voice will impede that goal.
As I said earlier, Ive genuinely questioned why Im returning to the thread. I understand why people are voting Yes, and I dont disagree with those reasons. People are entitled to vote yes and I dont actually want to convince anyone not to vote yes, but the reason I keep posting here I think, is I keep seeing Yes voters saying "I just want to help Indigenous", or "Its just an advisory body like so many others" and these assertations are incredibly vague and superficial at best and often flat out wrong and I guess I keep coming back because I think its important that if anyone votes Yes that they understand what they are voting yes to..
FWIW my non racist reasons (I dont have any racist reasons) are:
1. On a principle basis I dont like the concept or the precedent of the Constitution providing special access, reprepresentation and YES privileges to one section of the Australian population over another, particularly on the basis of an immutable characteristic such as race. Particularly when this section of society gets access that no other Australian gets (access to the executive). Wouldnt stop the Voice being legislated.
2. I actually dont think on a practical, logistical basis that it can actually physically work. Parliament struggles to get through its workload already and if the Voice gets up, EVERY piece of legislation has to go through the filter of the Voice which will need to be assess by 24 different people and then presumably through the people they represent to be checked for indigenous impact and then a distilled response formulated to present to Parliament or the executive. I genuinely dont understand how this is not going to slow down the process of how parliament works. Why not legislate the voice and see how it works on a practical basis for a trial period of say 5 years?
3. This is going to be incredibly divisive no matter what anyone says. I understand the argument that this is going to help indigenous Australians and how can that be a bad thing and how can that not bring all Australians together...but....by its actual definition, The Voice will divide. What happens the first time that advice from The Voice changes or kills a bill? What happens when something doesnt get done because of The Voice? What happens when Parliament decides to do something, without the Voice or disregards the Voice and it goes straight to the High Court (and it HAS to go to the High Court because that is the role of the High Court and the whole reason for being in the Constitution)? By its actual definition it will be divisive. if it isnt being divisive, its not doing its job. For Gods sake dont put it in the damn Constitution.
Really like the idea of having done a 5 year trial first. I feel like that would either allay or prove your arguments. With hindsight, a much better course.
I think the government completely underestimated the scepticism that would emerge and took the positive polling on the issue for granted and assumed it would have enough support.
To your issues, and I accept these are unsatisfactory responses:
I think the voice can be effective where others weren't because the members will be accountable and connected to the communities that vote for them. That's the ideal scenario. In a more real political situation where politically savvy get the places, I still believe there is much greater accountability and agency for Indigenous people with the introduction of the voice. So much money, so many agencies and no representative body like this doesn't make sense to me. If it proves ineffective government can change it.
I believe the reason for constitutional change is in recognition of long history of harsh and restrictive policies against indigenous people in Australia. I think it should be more than just another government created body, which indigenous people would likely mistrust and see only as a fleeting thing. Constitution change means it is foundational to our country and I'd be proud of that recognition in honour of their long history here. Whether you want it or not, race has been fundamental to our country since it's inception, it is a part of our political landscape. There are policies specifically for Indigenous people, it is important they have a say over those policies. What we've been doing hasn't been working well.
I don't think the voice is as powerful as you make it. It will have influence and input and feedback on indigenous policies. If it becomes more than that it will be unpopular and parliament will change it. But this is where a trial would have helped, I'm nothing to offer such reassurance about it.
I'm not worried about division. We must talk and express ideas. The pain and anger of Indigenous people is real and imo valid, the resentment and concern on the other side is also valid. We should talk about it more, not less. There will be idiots on both sides but the alternative of suppression is worse. I like discussion of our history, our country. This is democracy. So damn sick of hearing about Trump, who is a convicted Rapist and Felon and American media, let's deal with our stories.
It's a shame voting no looks like a rejection of Indigenous people and issues, when, in many cases, it's only a rejection of the model. But hopefully, we, the people, can see beyond the simplistic take of media organisations which skew everything and turn us against each other for profit.
Also share your reluctance to respond here, I do little doses and avoid, otherwise too consuming.
Anyway, back to me book and the gardening...
