By Dr David Barton
In 1983, as a naïve youth worker and concerned by what I had been reading since the early 1970s about what was happening with Aborigines in Alice Springs, I moved there to see what I could do to help. All told, I spent six years in Central Australia, leaving both depressed and convinced that the situation could never be fixed. One thing that bothered me then and still does is the constant calls for ‘self-determination’, not so much by Aborigines but by whitefella activists, some I later learned to be card-carrying members of the Communist Party and others who now hold senior positions in academia and the bureaucracy.
The contemporary definition of ‘Aboriginal self-determination’ is not about fitting in with the mainstream, of integrating or assimilating, but of splitting from mainstream Australia. Meanwhile, the rest of us get to pay for it whilst the rent seekers contribute very little to the community and Aboriginal lives, including those of children, continue to be ruined.
Assimilation is an anathema to progressives, who prefer ‘integration’ as the term de rigueur — but they are essentially the same thing. Aborigines need to learn to fit in, be a part of, what we have known to be Australian culture for the last 200-plus years and, indeed, most of them have done just that. (So why the special treatment, benefits and funding, you may well ask? That’s a topic for another conversation.)
None of this means Aborigines need to lose their culture – far from it. Unfortunately, much of what passes for Aboriginal ‘culture’ today is an invention of the last 50 years. Fortunately, much authentic Aboriginal culture of the past has vanished. The gruesome initiations, genital mutilation, inflicted cicatrices, burns, ritual spearings, sorcery and payback murders have by and large disappeared. Nevertheless, inter-tribe clan grievances often remain, as can be seen at some football indigenous matches, both on the field and amongst the spectators. Even though these encounters can still become violent, at least those conflicts are mostly played out with a football, not spears and clubs.
Meanwhile, the Aboriginal Industry is chock full of ill-informed urban myth-makers and illusionists, this caste of urgers and deluded pretenders giving rise to the patronising insistence on the uniqueness of ‘Aboriginal knowledge’ about everything from agriculture and fish farms (a lá Bruce Pascoe), water and fire management (a lá ‘cultural burning’) to Aboriginal ‘art’, ‘fashion’ and even ‘astronomy’, and not to mention Ernie Dingo and Richard Walley’s thoroughly overdone ‘Welcome to Country”. This is mostly snake oil fakery, an effort to convince contemporary Australians that the Aborigines of old were something they clearly were not. Worse, histories and observational accounts of early Aboriginal life and culture are vanishing from library shelves, replaced by the anti-white post-modern dogma of ‘invasion, colonisation and inter-generational trauma’. It is unusual today to find any history book about Aborigines in a secondary or tertiary institution that is more than fifteen years old. This is cultural censure and erasure happening right under our noses. We are all the poorer for it, black and white alike.
Meanwhile, the recent invention, exaggeration, distortion and misrepresentation of the alleged ‘frontier wars’ serves as a made-to-order replacement ‘history’ intended to raise the status of Aboriginal people and degrade that of settlers. It is yet another bill of goods, a distorting sham, being hawked by a power-grabbing activist elite in whose interest it is to falsify and distort our history. The goal, need it be said, is an attempt to paint a genocidal racism as Australia’s original sin.
I, too, would like more self-determination in my own life, too, but I am constrained by the laws of the land. Unfortunately, self-determination for many people who today identify as Aboriginal is taken to mean the normal rules — keeping children in school, eschewing clan and domestic violence — aren’t thought to fully apply. This is nowhere more apparent than on the troubled streets of Alice Springs. ‘Self-determination’ means ‘we’ll do what we like and you can pay for it’. Self-determination’ is about colonising and taking control, accepting all that whitefellas have to offer while offering nothing in return. Self-determination is about undermining whitefella institutions, judiciaries, organisations and bureaucracies. Self-determination is about enculturated white people who, on the strength of what may be a mere speck of indigenous DNA, now identify exclusively as Aboriginal, thereby giving themselves an economic and social leg-up. For the activist cadre it always was and always will be about money, power and control, all underscored by the notion that members of one race enjoy a preeminent ascendency over all other Australians.
More examples of ‘self-determination’ can be found in the ban on climbing Ayers Rock (Uluru), Mt Warning (Wollumbin), Mt Gillen, and many Grampians climbs, all for ill-defined or unexplained ‘cultural’ reasons’. After much outcry, consideration is now being given to re-opening the Mt Warning climb, but only for those who pay a fee and are escorted by indigenous guides. More rent-seeking, what a surprise! Australian place names are also rapidly being overwritten with (most likely made-up) Aboriginal names (eg: K’gari, once known as Fraser Island). All of this is about claims to ownership, to ‘sovereignty’. These changes should not be mistaken for deference to Aboriginal culture; it’s no more nor less than an insidious takeover. What we are experiencing here is cultural guerrilla warfare, the picking off one target after the other. Don’t believe it? Look no further that what has happened in New Zealand.
Self-determination is not about ‘closing the gap’, nor Aborigines ‘having a voice’ — all of that can be achieved without a change to the Constitution. Indeed, the $35+ billion currently spent on Aboriginal affairs and the 11-plus current Aboriginal members of parliament are more than enough to fulfil both aims. The Voice referendum is purely and simply about the drive towards Aboriginal sovereignty, which can only be achieved by changing the nation’s foundational document and charter.
Under the Albanese government, self-determination means the coming referendum, whose barely concealed intention is to divide Australia along lines of race. To achieve this ignoble end, the federal government is stacking the deck via its Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill 2022, which states
The Bill will also allow the Commonwealth to fund educational campaigns to promote voters’ understanding of referendums and the referendum proposal.
At the same time, in a joint media release issued on December 11, Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus, Special Minister of State Don Farrell, Minister for Indigenous Australians Linda Burney, and Pat Dodson, special envoy for reconciliation and implementing the Uluru Statement:
To support community education, the Government proposes to temporarily lift a funding restriction in the Act, to enable funding of educational initiatives to counter misinformation.
The entire media release is worth reading. But what is hiding in plain sight, is the Albanese government’s intention to de-facto fund and promote the ‘Yes’ campaign whilst hamstringing ‘No’ advocates. Anything the No campaign says can and will be construed as “misinformation”. We have seen this already with the appalling attacks by Noel Pearson and Marcia Langton’s on Jacinta Price. Brace for much more of that — and wonder, too, if the bile and attempts at character assassination are a foretaste of an empowered Voice?
To make an informed self-determination at the referendum’s ballot box, ordinary Australians must have full access to both sides of the argument, pro and con, which the Albanese government has already legislated to ensure this won’t happen. Meanwhile, Australians are subjected to a daily and massive pro-Yes propaganda barrage by the taxpayer-funded ABC and SBS. If Australians prove slow on the uptake, allow ourselves to be persuaded by the government’s nakedly rigged ‘information’ offensive and vote Yes despite changes to the Constitution having yet to be revealed, it will be too late!
In what is clearly not a ‘conspiracy theory’, the entire game plan is laid out in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), co-authored by Mick Dodson, brother of Labor’s Special Envoy for Reconciliation and the Implementation of the Uluru Statement from the Heart Senator Pat Dodson, and ratified by the Rudd Government in 2009. Do you see what they’re doing here?
In addition, the Australian Human Rights Commission has in 2021 called upon the federal Government to “develop a national program to implement UNDRIP and schedule it to the definition of human rights in the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011 (Cth)”2 This, too, is a major part of what the ‘Voice’ is all about. It’s another path to the same goal.
Labor and their confident, conceited acolytes would have us believe that support for the Yes vote is a lay down misère. It is beholden upon the rest of us — those who care about Australia as a whole rather than advancing the narrow interests of one group only — to contest the creation of a separate and sovereign Aboriginal nation on the Australian continent, for that is where the ‘Voice’ will take us. Once embedded in the Constitution, such an internal ‘sovereign nation’ will be impossible to dismantle. Despite Albanese &Co’s efforts to promote one side of the debate and suppress the other, this is the threat and the message all Australians must hear.
Dr David Barton is a proud Celtic and Anglo-Saxon man with a long generational family history in Australia. He lives in Central Victoria.”
Link here: https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/aborigines/2022/12/always-was-always-will-be-about-power/
I want to know exactly what it is the Aboriginal community wants. Total ownership of the land again? Apartheid? Their end goal is never stated or discussed. The bush is there, waiting, what is stopping them from going out there and living the old ways? Yet so very, very few do that. You want your land, but you also want cars and TVs and white-man medicine.
Dr David Barton is what we in the NT call a “bloody know-all tourist”. Six years stumbling around a place he is alien to, with no comprehension of NT history, the tribes of the region, or any languages, so how could he possible have something coherent to say?
Territorians have long warned these interlopers that it takes 20 years to tune in enough to be able to interpret what one observes, consciously excluding extraneous and conditioned southern values and finally appreciating the social, cultural, political, and natural context that surrounds us. After more than fifty years, I still have to caution myself.
This fool Barton is so arrogant he cannot be told, even now, that he has misinterpreted some, and totally misunderstood the rest. This is why some people get told, “Fuck off, Southerner”. This does not denote intolerance but outrage at wanton stupidity.
I can’t be bothered to address his driblings but let me comment on “self determination”. This refers to the right of every human being to deterrmine his own future. When this was first said by Whitlam, he was responding to the NT situation in which Director of Welfare Giese had been deciding every aspect of Aboriginal lives. As a welfare officer under his Welfare Branch, I witnessed this first hand. Out of self-determination we improved access to homelands so that family integrity could be strengthened, nutrition improved with local natural foods, and family authority applied to ensure proper upbringing of children.
By 1977, every Aboriginal child was educated to year four level, and most were advanced well beyond this. Today, 60% of Aboriginal kids cannot read or write; or even count beyond ten. Thanks to the Bartons of this world, many of these interstate urban Aborigines them,selves.
Dismantling of this by the likes of Barton is what created the revolving door of juvenile delinquency and later, crime.
Incidentally, I have already voted No, and so has every Territorian I have encountered barring two or three adult children, invariably dotty old ladies.
The Author has had personal experiences in Central Australia for a number of years and in many ways has reinforced my own experiences with aboriginal communities and people. Up until the 1970’s most aboriginal culture and knowledge was passed down to the next generation after you were initiated, often several times. You received very little knowledge if you were not initiated and by its very nature, aboriginal knowledge was not shared and actually concealed.
Compare this to western culture, where knowledge is relatively freely shared, thus this could be termed the core of the clash of civilisations. It was pointed out in no uncertain terms that unless the aboriginal population started to share there would be no culture, no languages and possibly very few aboriginal peoples left in a decade or so. Guess what? The aboriginal peoples started to share their heritage in a meaningful way and they now appear to not be able to stop. In fact, they have started foisting their culture upon Australians of European decent almost shoving it down our throats whether we show any interest or not.
I concur that there are now many active communists in the indigenous peoples lobby groups. Most of your left wing socialist aboriginal activists have been or were trained as communists. In fact the communists have been active in the aboriginal communities since about the 1920’s and have actively promulgated the concept of a separate state for aborigines since then. Separate laws, separate state, separate police force etc. etc. with the objective of dividing and conquering the country. This is another example of the long march through Australia’s institutions.
When you look at the renewal of aboriginal culture (which is really religion and should not be foisted upon others) with an unbiased eye, you will see that the author is right. Most of what we see today has been invented in the last 50 years. Whole languages have been developed (invented) from a few words that were passed down to activists from grandparents that did actually bother to take some interest in culture. These languages are actually termed ‘dead languages’ as can be seen by the language Latin…no native speakers. I’m not sure, but I believe some thousand native speakers are required for a language not to be termed a dead language. Add to this the invented ‘welcome to country’ that Ernie Dingo and friends developed, the smoking ceremony, Bruce Pascoe’s discredited book Dark Emu and the list goes on and on.
So what does this say about historical culture of the aboriginal peoples? In some ways it is pitiful and is plainly corrupt in the sense that it is ‘by and large’ a fabrication, but there is a more serious side to this practise and that is, it is attempting to rewrite history. Those rotten left wing socialists are at it again, because unless we have a reasonably accurate history, society will have no benchmarks. It will have no basis upon which to base growth and development. Surely, honesty is the best story as any self respecting person will tell you as the alternative is only self destructive.
Diversity sounds wonderful on the outside because why wouldn’t we accept and respect differences as compassionate, social creatures that we are (when unmanipulated).
However, when I look at what it is doing I see it is creating divisions. That the words (slogans, policies, pretty packages with bows) aren’t getting the results they claim to want to achieve.
This draws me to ask the question:
Is diversity stopping UNITY.
I am unreliably informed that the referendum is to Constitutionally entrench and recognise the “traditional custodians” of Australia.
It follows that once constitutional recognition takes place the “traditional custodians”, having been constitutionally recognised as such, are INDISPUTABLY eligible for restitution of their “custodianship rights”.
That is the SOLE reason the Gubbernment is insisting on the constitutional change. Without it, it is going to be hard yakka for any gubbernment to transfer Australia and its resources into the hands of the Money Merchants and the “Own Nothing, Be Happy” brigade.
They need a constitutionally “representative body”! It’s called the Voice. Without it, the Great Australian Sell Off is nigh on impossible.
Goodbye to country, forget any more Welcomes.
This referendum is essentially an attempt to legally entrench via constitutional change, extra political and social privileges to a tiny minority (< 3% ?) based on race and race alone – Shades of South Africa where also an ethnic minority had priviliged powers denied to the majority again based on ethnicity/race alone : viz. Europeans/Bantu/Coloureds etc..
I find it both ironic and disgraceful that the very same people who demonstrated here in Australia against South Africa during the 1970-1980s , supported sanctions and boycotts against raced-based Apartheid are, in the main, now pushing for the very same sort of racial provision of polity here.
Surely it is a nonsense that based solely on racial background (by self-identification hence the rapid increase in numbers of those calling themselves "proud First People man/women" sic) 3 % of the population can constitute a "First Nation "thus leaving the remaining 97 % as part of a Second Nation ? I strongly suggest that you raise this issue ASAP via media and expose the hypocrisy of those one time anti-Apartheid activists most now prominent within the saturation propanda for yes. This would include many public figures in the government from PM down who switched from denouncing SA Aprtheid to promoting it here.
Incidentally the totally faux confected phraseology of First Peoples, First Nations has been plagiarised/adopted from Canada despite a completely different history/societies/polity from Australia before settlement. Ditto the so-called smoking ceremonies,welcome to country farcical performances recently created/invented and popularized by state media, and the absurd woke re-naming of cities and localities on TV news/weatherprograms.
Slogans/Catch Phrases :
NO MEANS NO ALBO !
NO to APARTHEID HERE
3 % FIRST and 97 % SECOND ?
I AM YOU ARE WE ARE AUSTRALIAN
ALL RACES EQUAL IN AUSTRALIA
NO RACE BASED DIVIDE
Many variants of above can be circulated and used as talking points etc..
I’m confused, I have been hearing people say voting is rigged, that the outcome is already decided and no matter what you do, or don’t do, they will get their way. And I also hear people say the gov. is a corporation so not legal. That means anyone supporting an illegal gov. is also committing treason. Guess you lot weren’t the ones I heard it from.
Has anyone here actually seen a postal vote? I was provided a copy of one today. Your name is on what has to be posted back, which you also have to sign and have witnessed! In addition, it asks for your mobile number. So much for anonymous. I am thinking a lot of people who may have asked for postal votes may change their mind and head to a polling booth after seeing these requirements.
There are now more postal vote applications and additions to the roll than there are real people. Ed
On the day. Pre-polling is unlawful and is how the ballot papers can be altered. Editor
Hi Jeff where’s the bill? If it had been added to the referendum ballot paper the whole scam could have been lawful. It is not
now in its present form. Editor
Yeah Bliskitt couldn’t expect much else from Lancet although on odd occasions it does publish worthwhile info about the Covid
scam.
Ed
Hey Bliskitt the Ayers Rock bullshit was developed in essence in 2012 by AHRC then sent off to the UN as policy. Not even smart
arses like Pearson or Langton had a hand in its formulation. Ed
The reason I wanted that posted is because there is a brilliant rebuke to the article published on Quadrant.
”
There being insufficient time before the October 14 referendum to submit this rebuttal to The Lancet, we are sending this modestly amended version to Quadrant, where it has been a topic of recent interest.
The online Lancet article by Anderson et al published on September 28 exported a local Australian matter — the referendum to amend the Constitution and create a Voice — to a global audience which the authors’ address with bias and omission. Their article presents the appearance of academic neutrality but the authors all support the proposed constitutional change. Marcia Langton and Tom Calma co-wrote the foundational design of the Voice presented to the government. While citing that document they neglect to name themselves as the authors while wrongly naming another organisation, the National Indigenous Australians Agency, as the primary source. We give the correct reference below.
Langton’s low threshold for playing the race card is well known. In a recent speech she branded those who promote the ‘No’ option as ‘racist or stupid’. The Lancet paper’s title — Racism and the 2023 Australian constitutional referendum — quite deliberately raises the spectre of racism based on mere disagreement with the proposed constitutional amendment. The authors make no effort to explain why, in this largely non-racist nation, a majority of the electorate in opinion polls have said they intend to vote ‘No’ in a referendum seeking to profoundly change the Constitution. These reasons are:
1/ The proposal establishes a privilege based on Aboriginal ancestry (i.e. race-based identity) giving a group of Australian citizens representing about three per cent of the population a unique and effectively irreversible constitutional right to lobby (politely called “to provide advice”) to the Parliament and the executive.
Thus the referendum proposal is based on race. In constitutional terms, the existence of no other lobby group would be acknowledged.
2/ The government and Aboriginal activists claim the Voice is essential to improve poor health statistics, social circumstances, education and housing, but have not divulged the policy basis on which its advice would be made. One has to either accept or reject this claim, as discussion on how it would be achieved is impossible without details.
Furthermore, the background papers to the Uluru Statement from the Heart deal exclusively with matters such as negotiation of a treaty, reparations for colonial occupation and “truth-telling”. By themselves these prescriptions are unlikely to have any beneficial effect on Aboriginal living standards. To quote The Lancet: “A Voice does not guarantee outcomes.” On this we heartily agree.
3/ The government has steadfastly declined to provide any details about how the Voice would operate, how its members would be appointed, whether it would be a single Voice or a hierarchy of voices (national, regional and local), as proposed by Langton and Calma, or how much it will cost. Instead it has told the electors to await the required enabling legislation to be presented to Parliament after the referendum.
The government also decided against a Constitutional Convention which usually precedes a referendum. Such short-sighted decisions act to support voters inclined to vote No.
4/ There is disagreement amongst Aboriginal people over the Voice. The Lancet does not mention the influence of Jacinta Nampijinpa Price or Nunggai Warren Mundine, two prominent Aboriginal leaders of the No campaign whose views arise from personal knowledge.
There may indeed have been an increase in racist talk in Australia related to the referendum, as The Lancet article claims This is extremely regrettable but is not the doing of the No campaign. We suggest it became inevitable when the Parliament was presented with a constitutional amendment giving a preference to one group of citizens (currently equal in law) based on “ancestry”. It was inevitable that people would question the validity of such a proposal without any implication of racist motives.
The problems of Aboriginal peoples deserve urgent solutions, which we hope work to that end will proceed with urgency after the predicted majority vote No in the forthcoming election. Meantime, we regret the publication of prejudicial material by The Lancet.
The authors are three retired medical practioners and a solicitor living in regional WA: Alasdair Millar, physician and clinical pharmacologist; Arthur C Harris, physician and endocrinologist; Nigel Sinclair, cardiologist; Johan Willers, solicitor ”
quadrant.org.au. source of article.
The authors are Ian Anderson, Yin Paradies, Marcia Langton, Ray Lovett, Tom Calma. I have copied and pasted in previous post the contents of the journal, however here is link to article for reference purposes: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0140673623019542
Ed and Co.
“Racism and the 2023 Australian constitutional referendum (a Lancet article)
Comment
On Oct 14, 2023, Australians will vote in a national referendum. A Yes vote will change the Australian Constitution to acknowledge 60 millennia of Indigenous history and establish an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice to Parliament and the executive Government. The referendum honours the current Australian Government’s commitment to implement the 2017 Uluru Statement from the Heart, which calls for a Voice, Treaty, and Truth telling.1 The statement was the culmination of a nationwide consultative process, involving more than 1200 Indigenous Australians across 12 regional dialogues. A subsequent Voice co- design process engaged with 9400 Indigenous and non-Indigenous people and organisations.2,3 Indigenous leaders sought more than constitutional symbolism. Many conservative politicians would not accept the inclusion of rights in the Australian Constitution. The compromise position for Indigenous leaders was to enshrine the principle of an Indigenous Voice to Parliament, strengthening the right to be heard. However, there are early signs that the referendum process itself is causing Indigenous Australians to experience higher levels of racism.4,5 We posit that this is partly because the referendum process taps into a deep well of historical racism that originated on the Australian frontier when Indigenous peoples “were violently dispossessed from their lands by the British”.6
This history has shaped the 2023 referendum and an increasingly divisive campaign between those advocating a Yes and a No position. A Yes vote will require the Australian Parliament to legislate for structures that enable Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples to advise the Government and the Parliament on laws or policies that affect the lives of Indigenous peoples.
The Yes campaign points out that Australian governments have shut down Indigenous advisory bodies when their proposals were at odds with government interests or policy. Enshrining the Voice in the Constitution would ensure that an advisory body would not be disbanded, regardless of the views of the government of the day. The Yes campaign also argues that having Indigenous voices in the development of programmes can improve outcomes on issues that matter to Indigenous Australians, such as land management, Indigenous cultural heritage, or health care.7 To illustrate this view, from January, 2020, to January, 2021, the number of cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection was six-fold higher for non-Indigenous Australians than for First Nation Australians. It was argued that this difference was due to the early engagement of Indigenous peoples and organisations, at a national and local level, to drive the COVID-19 pandemic response within their communities.8 However, we also note the higher rates of severe infection among Indigenous Australians during the phase of the pandemic with omicron SARS- CoV-2 variants. This difference was most likely due to the higher burden of chronic disease in Indigenous Australians.9
Health champions who are campaigning for the Yes campaign will argue that Indigenous voices will provide the Australian Government with advice on addressing structural racism and on the social determinants of health, such as education, poverty, and housing. A large body of research shows that interpersonal and institutional racism is associated with greater psychological distress and poorer physical health for Indigenous peoples.10,11
The No campaign argues that a Voice to Parliament will be racially divisive. They argue it will be racist as it confers special privileges on Indigenous Australians.12 This argument is factually incorrect. There are many business bodies, trade unions, and statutory bodies—representing a range of interests across the Australian community— that regularly provide advice to the Government. It is also an argument that is not supported by more than 100 ethnic advisory bodies, which are all advocating for the Yes vote.13 Nonetheless, there is also a progressive No campaign that argues an Indigenous Voice to Parliament is not sufficient to effect real change in outcomes. Citing past government failures to respect Indigenous self- determination and sovereignty, these campaigners are concerned that the proposal does not go far enough. They are calling for stronger forms of self-determination, such as designated Indigenous seats in Parliament.14
Since the referendum was announced, there has been a substantial rise in threats, abuse, vilification, and hate speech against Indigenous peoples, both in person and online. The Australian e-Safety Commission reported in late May, 2023, that there had been more than a 10% rise in the proportion of complaints made by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples about online cyber abuse, threats, and harassment.4 Furthermore, the First Peoples’ Assembly of Victoria has gone from blocking two people a day for racist abuse on social media to blocking about 50 people, citing the national debate on an Indigenous Voice as the reason for this escalation.5 Similar discrimination was experienced by the LGBTQIA+ community during the plebiscites in the USA and the 2017 Australian Marriage Law Postal Survey plebiscite.15–20
The Voice referendum process creates a substantial cultural load for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. Indigenous peoples are being asked, and expected, to engage in conversations around this topic and, often, are then challenged to defend their position.
To address these stressors, the Australian Government has allocated AU$10 million to the National Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisation(NACCHO)to support the mental health of First Nations peoples during thecampaign.21NACCHO represents Indigenous-led com-prehensive primary care services that were established in the 1970s to strengthen Indigenous self-determination. As front-line services, the organisations represented by NACCHO draw on community strengths to respond to emerging trends and challenges such as racism.
To mitigate risk to mental health and wellbeing, there needs to be respectful discourse that counters the misinformation that is emerging about the Voice and Indigenous aspirations. This discourse requires all forms of media to commit to controls that prevent racial
abuse. Public information campaigns, such as that of the Australian Election Commission, are also needed.22 It will also require services and supports for Indigenous Australians during the referendum process and after the outcome is announced.
Speculating on the post-referendum situation: a No vote will have a profoundly negative effect on those in the Indigenous world who have walked a journey of reconciliation with politicians, business leaders, and Australian communities for nearly two decades. Australian governments have withdrawn their support for Indigenous self-determination before. No doubt Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples will continue to strive for justice. Even if the vote is for Yes, Indigenous peoples will need to work very closely with the Australian Parliament to ensure the Voice legislation realises their ambitions for greater control over their lives. A voice does not guarantee outcomes. A voice provides a stronger platform through which governments can work more effectively with Indigenous Australians at a regional and national level. The 2020 National Agreement on Closing the Gap in Indigenous outcomes brought Indigenous voices to the decision- making table through a coalition of Aboriginal peaks.23 They represented local Indigenous services from across sectors, such as justice, housing, childcare, employment, and education. It was not a health agreement, but it addressed the social and cultural determinants of Indigenous health. Reform priorities included addressing racism and improving Indigenous control of data. The agreement built on Indigenous capability and strengths to avoid a narrow focus on Indigenous deficits.23
Despite divergent positions, campaign groups identify this to be the most consequential referendum in the history of the Federation of Australia.24,12 Whatever the result, it will have a profound effect on the future relationship between Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and other Australians.”
IA was Deputy Secretary for Indigenous Affairs in the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet (2017–20). ML is an advisory member of the Australian Government’s Referendum Working Group and the Referendum Engagement Group (2023). RL received funding from the Australian Government to monitor Indigenous mental health and racism during the referendum period. TC is an advisory member of the Australian Government’s Referendum Working Group and the Referendum Engagement Group (2023). YP declares no competing interests. We are all Indigenous peoples; IA is palawa, YP is Wakaya, ML is Yiman-Bidjara, RL is Ngiyampaa (Wongaibon), and TC is Kungarakan and Iwaidja.
*Ian Anderson, Yin Paradies, Marcia Langton, Ray Lovett, Tom Calma
ip.anderson@utas.edu.au”
My third attempt at posting this journal produced 28 Sep 2023. I will post the details separately.
Hi nEd and Co. Second attempt at posting this.
From the Lancet journal dated 28 Sep 03. Please note the authors (an Anderson, Yin Paradies, Marcia Langton, Ray Lovett, Tom Calma). Also at bottom of post. I have included the whole article here.
Title: Racism and the 2023 Australian constitutional referendum
“Comment
On Oct 14, 2023, Australians will vote in a national referendum. A Yes vote will change the Australian Constitution to acknowledge 60 millennia of Indigenous history and establish an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice to Parliament and the executive Government. The referendum honours the current Australian Government’s commitment to implement the 2017 Uluru Statement from the Heart, which calls for a Voice, Treaty, and Truth telling.1 The statement was the culmination of a nationwide consultative process, involving more than 1200 Indigenous Australians across 12 regional dialogues. A subsequent Voice co- design process engaged with 9400 Indigenous and non-Indigenous people and organisations.2,3 Indigenous leaders sought more than constitutional symbolism. Many conservative politicians would not accept the inclusion of rights in the Australian Constitution. The compromise position for Indigenous leaders was to enshrine the principle of an Indigenous Voice to Parliament, strengthening the right to be heard. However, there are early signs that the referendum process itself is causing Indigenous Australians to experience higher levels of racism.4,5 We posit that this is partly because the referendum process taps into a deep well of historical racism that originated on the Australian frontier when Indigenous peoples “were violently dispossessed from their lands by the British”.6
This history has shaped the 2023 referendum and an increasingly divisive campaign between those advocating a Yes and a No position. A Yes vote will require the Australian Parliament to legislate for structures that enable Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples to advise the Government and the Parliament on laws or policies that affect the lives of Indigenous peoples.
The Yes campaign points out that Australian governments have shut down Indigenous advisory bodies when their proposals were at odds with government interests or policy. Enshrining the Voice in the Constitution would ensure that an advisory body would not be disbanded, regardless of the views of the government of the day. The Yes campaign also argues that having Indigenous voices in the development of programmes can improve outcomes on issues that matter to Indigenous Australians, such as land management, Indigenous cultural heritage, or health care.7 To illustrate this view, from January, 2020, to January, 2021, the number of cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection was six-fold higher for non-Indigenous Australians than for First Nation Australians. It was argued that this difference was due to the early engagement of Indigenous peoples and organisations, at a national and local level, to drive the COVID-19 pandemic response within their communities.8 However, we also note the higher rates of severe infection among Indigenous Australians during the phase of the pandemic with omicron SARS- CoV-2 variants. This difference was most likely due to the higher burden of chronic disease in Indigenous Australians.9
Health champions who are campaigning for the Yes campaign will argue that Indigenous voices will provide the Australian Government with advice on addressing structural racism and on the social determinants of health, such as education, poverty, and housing. A large body of research shows that interpersonal and institutional racism is associated with greater psychological distress and poorer physical health for Indigenous peoples.10,11
The No campaign argues that a Voice to Parliament will be racially divisive. They argue it will be racist as it confers special privileges on Indigenous Australians.12 This argument is factually incorrect. There are many business bodies, trade unions, and statutory bodies—representing a range of interests across the Australian community— that regularly provide advice to the Government. It is also an argument that is not supported by more than 100 ethnic advisory bodies, which are all advocating for the Yes vote.13 Nonetheless, there is also a progressive No campaign that argues an Indigenous Voice to Parliament is not sufficient to effect real change in outcomes. Citing past government failures to respect Indigenous self- determination and sovereignty, these campaigners are concerned that the proposal does not go far enough. They are calling for stronger forms of self-determination, such as designated Indigenous seats in Parliament.14
Since the referendum was announced, there has been a substantial rise in threats, abuse, vilification, and hate speech against Indigenous peoples, both in person and online. The Australian e-Safety Commission reported in late May, 2023, that there had been more than a 10% rise in the proportion of complaints made by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples about online cyber abuse, threats, and harassment.4 Furthermore, the First Peoples’ Assembly of Victoria has gone from blocking two people a day for racist abuse on social media to blocking about 50 people, citing the national debate on an Indigenous Voice as the reason for this escalation.5 Similar discrimination was experienced by the LGBTQIA+ community during the plebiscites in the USA and the 2017 Australian Marriage Law Postal Survey plebiscite.15–20
The Voice referendum process creates a substantial cultural load for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. Indigenous peoples are being asked, and expected, to engage in conversations around this topic and, often, are then challenged to defend their position.
To address these stressors, the Australian Government has allocated AU$10 million to the National Aboriginal CommunityControlledHealthOrganisation(NACCHO)to support the mental health of First Nations peoples during the campaign.21 NACCHO represents Indigenous-led com-prehensive primary care services that were established in the 1970s to strengthen Indigenous self-determination. As front-line services, the organisations represented by NACCHO draw on community strengths to respond to emerging trends and challenges such as racism.
To mitigate risk to mental health and wellbeing, there needs to be respectful discourse that counters the misinformation that is emerging about the Voice and Indigenous aspirations. This discourse requires all forms of media to commit to controls that prevent racial
abuse. Public information campaigns, such as that of the Australian Election Commission, are also needed.22 It will also require services and supports for Indigenous Australians during the referendum process and after the outcome is announced.
Speculating on the post-referendum situation: a No vote will have a profoundly negative effect on those in the Indigenous world who have walked a journey of reconciliation with politicians, business leaders, and Australian communities for nearly two decades. Australian governments have withdrawn their support for Indigenous self-determination before. No doubt Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples will continue to strive for justice. Even if the vote is for Yes, Indigenous peoples will need to work very closely with the Australian Parliament to ensure the Voice legislation realises their ambitions for greater control over their lives. A voice does not guarantee outcomes. A voice provides a stronger platform through which governments can work more effectively with Indigenous Australians at a regional and national level. The 2020 National Agreement on Closing the Gap in Indigenous outcomes brought Indigenous voices to the decision- making table through a coalition of Aboriginal peaks.23 They represented local Indigenous services from across sectors, such as justice, housing, childcare, employment, and education. It was not a health agreement, but it addressed the social and cultural determinants of Indigenous health. Reform priorities included addressing racism and improving Indigenous control of data. The agreement built on Indigenous capability and strengths to avoid a narrow focus on Indigenous deficits.23
Despite divergent positions, campaign groups identify this to be the most consequential referendum in the history of the Federation of Australia.24,12 Whatever the result, it will have a profound effect on the future relationship between Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and other Australians.”
“IA was Deputy Secretary for Indigenous Affairs in the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet (2017–20). ML is an advisory member of the Australian Government’s Referendum Working Group and the Referendum Engagement Group (2023). RL received funding from the Australian Government to monitor Indigenous mental health and racism during the referendum period. TC is an advisory member of the Australian Government’s Referendum Working Group and the Referendum Engagement Group (2023). YP declares no competing interests. We are all Indigenous peoples; IA is palawa, YP is Wakaya, ML is Yiman-Bidjara, RL is Ngiyampaa (Wongaibon), and TC is Kungarakan and Iwaidja.
*Ian Anderson, Yin Paradies, Marcia Langton, Ray Lovett, Tom Calma
ip.anderson@utas.edu.au”
Link is here: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0140673623019542?fr=RR-2&ref=pdf_download&rr=8124f24768bb2b2b
@Jeff: “the bill only authorizes a panel to be elected by Aboriginals, to act as a liason and observer body”
What bill are you talking about?? Where is it?
“No voters” like myself are not Aboriginal haters as some will characterise us. I authored a book MEMORIES of KWINANA 1946/47 to 1968 in which is a paragraph describing an Aboriginal man of the area.
“Then there was an elderly Aboriginal gentleman by the name of Simon Gentle. He lived in a shed off Mandurah Road, in the next paddock to the Agricultural Hall. He was always clean and neatly dressed in a suit when cycling to the shop at Kwinana with a sugar bag to carry his goods. Simon always spoke to the children and women in a well educated but slightly high pitched voice. Always courteous, addressing all the women as Missus. Simon was that well respected that a road off Wellard Road has been named Gentle Road.”
In slightly more recent times I have been involved with other Aboriginal people. In particular I have worked alongside two “Wally” brothers as well as been involved in sporting activities with them.
Thank you Mr Barton for the time put into this paper. You are one of a few telling the story that has lived a part of that story.
As you have mentioned this so-called referendum is unlawful in its presented form. This fact really shows what the criminals of Canberra and the UN are up to.
Contrary to what Mr. Barton insinuates, if the referendum passes, the bill only authorizes a panel to be elected by Aboriginals, to act as a liason and observer body. This does not equate to, in his words, “a separate and sovereign Aboriginal nation.”
When you are at a cross road and don’t know whether to cross as a car is coming from the side towards you, the safest is not to cross. Why would you behave differently when a truck is coming towards you? To vote NO is the only answer.
Vote pre poll or on voting day – which is best?
The referendum is invalid, its is witnessed, not signed off by the Governor General and issued by SA member Don Farrow a ‘Special minister of State’?
https://i.imgur.com/emb5LPy.jpg
The elite cabal will downplay or praise indigenous culture as it suits their needs and agendas.
Such an accurate article in all respects, even the 50 years – the pedo Whitless first year in power (elected Dec 1872). The only thing left out is the puppet master from the City of Seven Hills.
Speaking of honest elections, if you recall a major discrepancy in the US was the manipulation of postal votes received after the election had ended.
The below timetable provides the key dates for the administration of Albonese’s 2023 referendum as per the AEC website.
Formal commencement of the referendum
Monday 11 September
Postal vote applications open
Monday 11 September
Close of rolls
Monday 18 September
Remote voting begins
Monday 25 September
Early voting centres open (NT, TAS, VIC & WA)
Monday 2 October
Early voting centres open (ACT, NSW, QLD & SA)
Tuesday 3 October
Postal vote applications close
Wednesday 11 October
Referendum day
Saturday 14 October
Last day for the receipt of postal votes
Friday 27 October
Does anyone else remember when elections were called later that night?
Nothing to see here, move along now.
https://www.aec.gov.au/referendums/learn/timetable.html
Glad to see you published this ED. I couldn’t agree more with this gentlemen’s sentiments, having been born in 1972. How our country has changed since then through the lies, mistruths etc told only by a few. It is about time the majority spoke up.
[…] Go to Source on cairnsnews.org Follow altnews.org on Telegram Please donate now! 00 […]