Shownotes
In this episode, we discuss the result of the referendum and the latest in Gaza
To financially support the Podcast you can make:
- a per-episode donation via Patreon or
- one-off donation via credit card; or
- one-off or regular donations via Paypal or
- if you are into Cryptocurrency you can send Satoshis.
We Livestream every Monday night at 7:30 pm Brisbane time. Follow us on Facebook or YouTube. Watch us live and join the discussion in the chat room.
You can sign up for our newsletter, which links to articles that Trevor has highlighted as potentially interesting and that may be discussed on the podcast. You will get 3 emails per week. After the fiasco mentioned in episode 454 I can't use Mailchimp anymore so for the moment, send me an email and I'll add you to a temporary list until something more automated is arranged.
We have a website. www.ironfistvelvetglove.com.au
You can email us. The address is trevor@ironfistvelvetglove.com.au
You can send us a voicemail message at Speakpipe
Transcripts started in episode 324. You can use this link to search our transcripts. Type "iron fist velvet glove" into the search directory, click on our podcast and then do a word search. It even has a player which will play the relevant section. It is incredibly quick.
Transcripts
From Sky News on the right to the ABC on the left, an Iron Curtain
Speaker:has descended across the continent.
Speaker:On the right of that line lies an evil empire of conservative
Speaker:Christians who deny climate change but believe in trickle down economics.
Speaker:On the left Lies a misguided and confused rabble who are supposed to
Speaker:help the working man but instead fight amongst themselves over identities.
Speaker:Only the Iron Fist Velvet Glove podcast takes the uncomfortable
Speaker:position of sitting astride the Iron Curtain to take aim at both sides.
Speaker:Only this podcast and perhaps the bullshit filter.
Speaker:can explain the dire threats facing our civilization.
Speaker:I only wish that they could have traveled back in time to when I
Speaker:was conducting the war effort with the benefit of their wise counsel.
Speaker:The war would have ended three years earlier, I would not have lost the
Speaker:election, and I would have invested heavily in technology stocks.
Speaker:In any event, I implore you to listen to this very fine podcast.
Speaker:It is your duty.
Speaker:Well, hello and welcome, dear listener.
Speaker:Episode 404.
Speaker:I'm Trevor, a.
Speaker:k.
Speaker:a.
Speaker:the Iron Fist.
Speaker:No Velvet Glove with us tonight.
Speaker:He's in a different location with no internet so couldn't make it.
Speaker:Thank you.
Speaker:But we do have our UK correspondent and tech guy, Joe, coming in all the
Speaker:way from Devon at 10 30 in the morning.
Speaker:Joe, good morning to you.
Speaker:Good morning all.
Speaker:Yeah, so Joe's there relaxing with a, with a wool and cardigan on and
Speaker:a cup of tea or coffee or something?
Speaker:No, he's got a Coke anyway, but yeah yeah, so it's just telling
Speaker:myself if you're in the chat room, say hello, like Tanya just did.
Speaker:And Yeah, so, isn't it great?
Speaker:It comes through loud and clear, thanks to the wonders of technology.
Speaker:We can continue to do this as a panel discussion.
Speaker:It just means our little group of meerkats are scattered all over the planet.
Speaker:So, well, anything happened in the last seven days that
Speaker:we need to talk about, Joe?
Speaker:I can't think of anything, no.
Speaker:Oh, well, we'll just call it a bits and Yeah, that's it.
Speaker:Yeah, a voice result.
Speaker:It's come through, eh?
Speaker:Not an unexpected result of Rejecting the proposal, 60 to 40
Speaker:not a single state in favour of it.
Speaker:And that was a surprise.
Speaker:It was shaping up that way early on, wasn't it, that some would get through.
Speaker:So, the ACT, not a state, but a territory passed it.
Speaker:And the closest was Victoria, but it was still 55 45 against.
Speaker:And the state that was most against was Queensland.
Speaker:68.
Speaker:9 against only 31.
Speaker:1 in favour.
Speaker:So, overall for the country, pretty much 60 40.
Speaker:And that was a fairly conclusive result.
Speaker:And boy oh boy, there's been some...
Speaker:Hand wringing?
Speaker:Ah, hand wringing is the word I wanted to use as well, Joe.
Speaker:Boy, advocates for the, for the voice, people on the left, really
Speaker:going to town about what this means.
Speaker:And, you know, there are arguments about...
Speaker:Means we're all a bunch of racists.
Speaker:Yes, essentially.
Speaker:Dumb racists.
Speaker:Yeah.
Speaker:Only dumb racists could possibly have voted for, against this
Speaker:proposal, this modest proposal.
Speaker:And and what a terrible state of affairs this is.
Speaker:That's, that's pretty much the line coming from advocates for the yes vote.
Speaker:And...
Speaker:You need to be careful with a modest proposal.
Speaker:Yeah, well that's, that's their argument, is it was a modest proposal.
Speaker:A generous invitation a reaching out that was rejected and that the
Speaker:only possible conclusion is that Australians are racist and don't care.
Speaker:And that's just bullshit.
Speaker:Well, I did see some yes advocates saying that.
Speaker:It wasn't that Australia was racist.
Speaker:I saw some saying that the yes vote hadn't properly explained their position.
Speaker:And then some others saying, look Australians on the whole...
Speaker:People want everything that the Yes Camp want, they just think that the proposal
Speaker:put forward was the wrong proposal.
Speaker:It was the wrong way to go about it.
Speaker:It wasn't that the average Australian doesn't want to close the gap.
Speaker:It was just people didn't see the value in what was being proposed.
Speaker:Correct.
Speaker:And I've got some polling by Essential Poll that says exactly that, which
Speaker:we'll get to a little bit later on, but we'll sort of set the scene before that.
Speaker:So.
Speaker:You know, there's a lot of people saying, what does it mean?
Speaker:At its most basic level, it just simply means people didn't like the voice.
Speaker:It doesn't mean that they rejected recognition of Indigenous people.
Speaker:There wasn't the option to recognise Indigenous people and reject the voice.
Speaker:So, if you just didn't like the voice, you had to reject the entire proposal.
Speaker:And, in the same way that the Yes Advocates...
Speaker:They never dealt with the issue of, you know, show us how
Speaker:this will make a difference.
Speaker:And they never dealt with the issue of, show us why this isn't a racist proposal.
Speaker:And they skirted around the issue and relied on emotion.
Speaker:And I've got some clips from Michael Mansell to deal with that, where they
Speaker:asked people to be emotional about the plight of Indigenous people and somehow
Speaker:make a connection that wasn't there yet.
Speaker:And, and yeah.
Speaker:The, the strongest argument about the this is a racist proposal is, well,
Speaker:the constitutions are already racist, so making it more racist is, is fine.
Speaker:Mm-hmm.
Speaker:Which to me is counterintuitive.
Speaker:Yeah.
Speaker:And you know, prior to Noel Pearson's essay where he raised the voice,
Speaker:the option that was being considered was put in a recognition clause
Speaker:and get rid of the race provisions that were in there already.
Speaker:That would have got up.
Speaker:But not this.
Speaker:So, so there's a lot of talk about what it means and what it doesn't mean, and
Speaker:we'll get into the commentary of that but, you know, really, the Yes Advocates
Speaker:are just pretty poor in their commentary because they're, they're arguing
Speaker:something that's not right, that 60 percent of Australians are dumb racists.
Speaker:And it's really upsetting people because they're saying to Indigenous
Speaker:people, you know, if this doesn't get up, Australians are rejecting
Speaker:you and don't want to help you.
Speaker:And naturally, many Indigenous people are believing that,
Speaker:and are now genuinely upset.
Speaker:But that's not the case.
Speaker:So...
Speaker:So these Yes Advocates who are shitty that they lost, have painted
Speaker:a picture that is upsetting people it's painting a picture of a racist,
Speaker:uncaring community that doesn't give a shit about Indigenous people.
Speaker:That's just not true.
Speaker:So they're it's a disservice to the people that they're supposedly trying to help.
Speaker:Yeah.
Speaker:So.
Speaker:Thank you.
Speaker:Well, personally, I don't care about Indigenous people.
Speaker:I care about all Australians.
Speaker:And so I don't care what colour your skin is.
Speaker:If you need help, I want to be part of the community that gives help.
Speaker:And sure, absolutely, there are probably a greater proportion of
Speaker:First Nation people that need help rather than white people, but I don't
Speaker:think that they should be treated any differently, any, any special thing
Speaker:because I want everybody to get help.
Speaker:Hmm.
Speaker:So, this was actually a victory for equality and against racism,
Speaker:but in these Orwellian times...
Speaker:of doublespeak.
Speaker:Yes, advocates are arguing the opposite, and our media and our public
Speaker:intellectuals demonstrated how poor they are at doing their jobs, and even
Speaker:well meaning members of the public can't follow points of debate and
Speaker:argue rationally, and we've lost our ability to genuinely debate ideas.
Speaker:And let me just put the chat on the screen so I can see it.
Speaker:So there was a Father Frank Brennan, who we've mentioned
Speaker:over the years, a Jesuit priest, definitely in favour of a yes vote.
Speaker:He wrote after the referendum a piece that was, you know, sad about what had
Speaker:happened, but said accept the result.
Speaker:But I'm just going to read a couple of paragraphs of what he
Speaker:said, which is very pertinent.
Speaker:So this is Frank Brennan.
Speaker:This referendum was nothing like the 1967 referendum.
Speaker:It was nothing like the same sex marriage plebiscite.
Speaker:In 1967, over 90 percent of voters supported a proposal put forward,
Speaker:urging that Aboriginal people be treated the same as the rest of us.
Speaker:Okay?
Speaker:In 1967, 90 percent of voters agreed to that proposal.
Speaker:Treat Aboriginal people the same as the rest of us.
Speaker:In the same sex marriage plebiscite over 50%.
Speaker:Over 60%.
Speaker:Who chose to vote supported a proposal that the civil institution of marriage
Speaker:be made available to all couples regardless of their sexual orientation.
Speaker:In both these votes, we were voting to treat everyone the same.
Speaker:This referendum was nothing of the sort.
Speaker:In fact, it was probably the exact opposite on one reading, the 60% no vote.
Speaker:was a decision, once again, to treat everyone the same, declining to
Speaker:set up a new constitutional entity available only to one group of
Speaker:citizens, namely the First Australians.
Speaker:So, accurate portrayal, I think, by Frank Brennan of what actually happened.
Speaker:Just in terms of the voting and the different seats, It was pretty apparent
Speaker:that seats that were won by Greens in the federal sphere, or by Teal candidates,
Speaker:those were the sort of electorates that voted yes in favour of the voice.
Speaker:Just those handful of seats.
Speaker:So, I'm in the seat of Ryan, for example, and that was won by a
Speaker:Greens candidate in the last federal election, and the seat I'm in was one
Speaker:of the few that voted in favour of.
Speaker:A voice, so it's these inner city, well educated, upper middle class areas that
Speaker:were in favour of the Yes Vote compared to the rest of the country pretty sort of,
Speaker:and it didn't really matter, that was in more or less all the states where that was
Speaker:sort of indicative of how the voting went.
Speaker:What happened in Dixon, Joe?
Speaker:Yeah strangely enough.
Speaker:It being Peter Dutton's electorate it was a no, and it was quite interesting
Speaker:the early votes trended no the people who voted at City Hall in Brisbane
Speaker:attended or trended left, trended yes.
Speaker:So these were people in the Dixon electorate who were working in the city?
Speaker:Yes.
Speaker:Who had voted at the City Hall, yeah.
Speaker:Yes.
Speaker:And then it was mostly no, there were a couple of, basically as he
Speaker:got closer to the city, it trended yes, the further out for the city, it
Speaker:trended no, but I think Mount Nebo was one of the polling stations and that
Speaker:was the strongest yes vote at 72%.
Speaker:Also interesting was the spoiled ballots, whatever they call them, invalid, I think.
Speaker:Which varied between one and three percent, and I was, well,
Speaker:I don't know what it normally is.
Speaker:I thought that was quite high though.
Speaker:Seems high, doesn't it?
Speaker:Yeah.
Speaker:And I wonder how many people went, I have to vote, but I don't want to vote.
Speaker:So I'm gonna spoil my paper.
Speaker:I've got some quotes from some people just to give some sense of what the left or the
Speaker:yes advocates are saying about the result.
Speaker:Alan Patience, who writes in the John Menendee blog, What the whole debate
Speaker:about an Indigenous voice to parliament demonstrated, with brutal clarity, is that
Speaker:Australia is a morally backward society.
Speaker:Goes on, During the debate the no side resorted to numerous lies, distortions
Speaker:of the truth and misinformation.
Speaker:Their leaders insisted that we must be respectful of no voters.
Speaker:But how can anyone respect people who have chosen indifference over concern?
Speaker:Hostility over love?
Speaker:Exclusion over inclusion.
Speaker:Cruelty over compassion.
Speaker:Further on he says, What the whole debate about an Indigenous voice to parliament
Speaker:demonstrated with brutal clarity is that Australia is a morally backward society.
Speaker:The one glimmer of hope is a new generation of voters and
Speaker:potential leaders is coming.
Speaker:They will help the country to steer clear of the political morass of resentfulness,
Speaker:racism and inhumanity into which Dutton and his ilk would take the country.
Speaker:Look, it's entirely possible to have voted no.
Speaker:And to not even have read a single thing that Dutton and his mob said about it,
Speaker:and to the whole point about not enough information, you know, personally,
Speaker:complete bullshit, there was enough information, it was just a bad idea.
Speaker:Well, I think there were probably three reasons for voting no.
Speaker:One is you're a racist, and I'm sure that some people were.
Speaker:The other one was misinformation from the no vote.
Speaker:Where they were saying it would mean this need more information
Speaker:would mean that No, no, no, but also constitutionally risky and all that.
Speaker:And also that there was gonna be taxes and it was going to be land
Speaker:grabs and all sorts of things.
Speaker:And then finally it was, you've read it, you thought that it was a bad idea because
Speaker:you couldn't see any particular way that it was actually gonna benefit anyone.
Speaker:We'll get into those reasons.
Speaker:It's in the essential poll.
Speaker:Albanese in his speech afterwards he said, basically he said,
Speaker:Albanese said many people have worked all their lives for this.
Speaker:And that's just bullshit.
Speaker:Yeah, it's only a recent thing.
Speaker:That's right.
Speaker:It's just a Noel Pearson thought bubble from 2014 in his quarterly essay titled,
Speaker:A Rightful Place, Race Recognition and a More Complete Commonwealth.
Speaker:Okay, so some, some nine year olds have, have worked all their life for this.
Speaker:Yes, so, that was complete bullshit to say that people have
Speaker:worked their lives for the voice.
Speaker:It's an invention of Noel Pearson's that was a bad idea.
Speaker:I was watching the ABC coverage.
Speaker:I saw a lot of upper middle class professionals.
Speaker:on national television complaining about their disadvantage.
Speaker:I mean they talked about we are disadvantaged and I'm looking
Speaker:at these people thinking you don't look at disadvantage to me.
Speaker:One of them was a professor at a university.
Speaker:Like for sake, you are, describe your disadvantage to me.
Speaker:One commentator did talk about focusing on disadvantage
Speaker:rather than race in the future.
Speaker:I'll get to him.
Speaker:That was that was a guy, Wesley Aird.
Speaker:Right.
Speaker:Just a bit more hand wringing Bernard Kean in Crikey wrote, There
Speaker:are no ifs, buts or niceties around this transformational moment.
Speaker:The argument that it was a constitutionally enshrined voice,
Speaker:not recognition that was rejected, doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
Speaker:There is no recognition without a voice because the recognition requested by
Speaker:First Peoples begins with a voice.
Speaker:That's just logic, illogical crap by Bernard Keane.
Speaker:Perfectly possible to reject.
Speaker:He says the argument that it was a constitutionally enshrined shine
Speaker:voice, not recognition that was rejected, doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
Speaker:There is no recognition without a voice because the recognition requested by
Speaker:First Peoples begins with a voice.
Speaker:Anything else is a fake.
Speaker:I think the recognition is that they're equal citizens and that happened in 1967.
Speaker:Yes.
Speaker:And if there was to be a recognition of historical facts of Indigenous people
Speaker:being here first and colonization by white people, put it in.
Speaker:That, I was not, you know, I didn't want to reject that.
Speaker:I wanted to reject the voice.
Speaker:Bernard Kean is wrong.
Speaker:And just because Indigenous people wanted the voice doesn't change that.
Speaker:It's a nonsense.
Speaker:This is the sort of pathetic, illogical, irrational argument that we've had from
Speaker:our media and public intellectuals.
Speaker:Hang on.
Speaker:Saying black is white and...
Speaker:The sun will, you know, rise in the west and set in the
Speaker:east, because they say it does.
Speaker:Just because you say it, doesn't mean it's the case.
Speaker:I'm, I'm a middle aged man, white man, I want a middle aged
Speaker:white man voice to parliament.
Speaker:Doesn't mean I should get one, but...
Speaker:Well, anything else is a fake, he says.
Speaker:One peddled, primarily, by old white conservatives.
Speaker:You think recognition can be imposed on them, like invasion, dispossession and
Speaker:genocide was imposed on First Peoples.
Speaker:The no was inarguably a no to recognition.
Speaker:Bullshit.
Speaker:Lots of people would have accepted a recognition, they just didn't accept.
Speaker:That is complete bullshit, Bernard Kean.
Speaker:He goes on, There can be no pretense that this was some sort of
Speaker:accidental result or a failure of politicians or of the Yes campaign.
Speaker:There will be inevitable post mortems of the failure of Yes.
Speaker:But this was a referendum around a single, simple question.
Speaker:There was no complexity, no litany of important policy issues, no personalities,
Speaker:no preferential voting, all of which feature in general elections.
Speaker:This was as simple as democracy gets.
Speaker:And the outcome was as simple as the lopsided result.
Speaker:Australians voted by a large margin to keep pretending First Peoples
Speaker:weren't here before invasion, or to not care that they were.
Speaker:That is not what the vote was.
Speaker:The vote was whether there would be a voice.
Speaker:It was not a vote about whether people were here first, and it
Speaker:wasn't a vote about whether we care.
Speaker:But, but also, whether we care that they were, in what way should we care?
Speaker:Yes.
Speaker:Yes.
Speaker:There are all sorts of ways.
Speaker:We'll get on to it.
Speaker:We're Indigenous people themselves agreeing with this.
Speaker:So, all right.
Speaker:Well, the essential report let me see if I can get this up and and look
Speaker:at some of the results from that.
Speaker:Bear with me a second while I get this on the screen.
Speaker:Yeah, there we go.
Speaker:So there's going to be a bunch of graphs and we'll work our way through
Speaker:it as I'm sharing this screen.
Speaker:Right, let's move through the national mood, support for the Voice to Parliament
Speaker:main reason to vote no at the referendum.
Speaker:So, 42%.
Speaker:It will divide Australia in the constitution on the basis of race.
Speaker:That's what I've been saying all along.
Speaker:That's what people have been saying all along, and it was never.
Speaker:Confronted properly by the Yes campaign.
Speaker:So 42 percent of people said, who said no, their main reason was
Speaker:it will divide Australia in the Constitution on the basis of race.
Speaker:26 percent said there was not enough detail on how the voice will work.
Speaker:Personally, I never argued that.
Speaker:I don't think that's the case.
Speaker:That, to me, was not the problem.
Speaker:The problem was it was a bad idea.
Speaker:Now, 18 percent said it won't make a real difference to the lives of
Speaker:ordinary Indigenous Australians, and I think that's the case, and 14
Speaker:percent said it will give Indigenous Australians rights and privileges
Speaker:that other Australians don't have.
Speaker:That is, of course, the special lobbying rights that we've talked about before,
Speaker:so, so that's the reasons why, according to the Essential Poll, the people
Speaker:who voted no, mostly it's going to divide Australia on the basis of race.
Speaker:Not enough detail.
Speaker:It won't make a difference, and it gives rights and privileges
Speaker:to Indigenous Australians that other Australians don't have.
Speaker:Gender wise, not much difference in the genders.
Speaker:Men more, sorry, females, surprisingly, more likely to
Speaker:say there was not enough detail.
Speaker:31%, as opposed to men, 23%.
Speaker:So, age wise, age differences older people are more likely to say it's
Speaker:racist less likely to say there was not enough detail, less likely to
Speaker:say it won't make a real difference, but more likely to say that it gives
Speaker:Indigenous people rights and privileges.
Speaker:So, Older people were more about the racial issues of those who voted no.
Speaker:Younger people were talking about not enough detail and
Speaker:it won't make a difference.
Speaker:And voting intention agreeing in voters who voted no did so because
Speaker:they said there wasn't enough detail on how it would work.
Speaker:And coalition voters was because of the racism issue.
Speaker:And that's the sort of main items to glean from that.
Speaker:So, no surprises there, I don't think.
Speaker:That all makes sense to me.
Speaker:What else did we have here?
Speaker:Support for government actions after the referendum.
Speaker:So, one of the options is, in the event that the referendum does not
Speaker:succeed, to what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements?
Speaker:And the one that got the most support was, continue to work with First Nations
Speaker:communities to find solutions to the issues they faced, and whether and
Speaker:that was pretty much let me just try and get that in the right, let's do
Speaker:it by voting intention, I think it's going to be the easiest, I'll do it by
Speaker:gender, sorry folks, leave that with me.
Speaker:So, you know, between 60 65 percent of people said yep.
Speaker:Continue to work with First Nations communities to find solutions, that's
Speaker:what they want the government to do if the referendum does not succeed.
Speaker:Around the 37 38 percent said start working on a treaty, same number
Speaker:said start working on a truth telling commission, about the same number said
Speaker:establish an Aboriginal voice that's not enshrined in the constitution, and
Speaker:similar numbers around the mid 30s were Recognise Aboriginal and Islander people
Speaker:in the Constitution through another referendum without establishing a voice.
Speaker:So, majority support for continuing to work to find solutions, and
Speaker:very minimal support in the 30s.
Speaker:For treaty, truth telling, non constitutional voice type of things.
Speaker:Yeah, for all of the doomsayers out there saying Australia's racist, then
Speaker:most Australians want the government to find solutions to close the gap.
Speaker:They just don't want it done via the mechanism of the voice.
Speaker:And, I'll come back to, if we get time Australian Israel and
Speaker:Palestine type stuff in there, so, Joe, any thoughts on any of that?
Speaker:Any of that surprise you?
Speaker:There was something I was looking at I can't remember what it was though.
Speaker:There was something about the Liberals and the Greens, which was a little surprising.
Speaker:But No, I don't think so.
Speaker:I think the vast majority of people recognize that Indigenous
Speaker:people, especially those in remote communities, are in shocking
Speaker:circumstances, and they want that fixed.
Speaker:But again, having a voice in Parliament, I don't think is the answer.
Speaker:And I think most people thought that.
Speaker:Hmm.
Speaker:Yeah.
Speaker:Ah.
Speaker:Okay.
Speaker:Actually, surprising thing was women were slightly less empathetic about
Speaker:finding out what Aboriginals need.
Speaker:They were 63 percent as opposed to 65%.
Speaker:Yeah.
Speaker:Yeah.
Speaker:But on the whole, not a great gender difference in this, in these issues.
Speaker:Whereas we found with the Morrison government, for example, at the last
Speaker:federal election, there were quite distinct gender differences in.
Speaker:Invoking intention that don't appear in this voice polling from Essential Poll.
Speaker:Yeah, right.
Speaker:I've got some clips from some different people, so we hear some voices.
Speaker:I think I'd mentioned before Michael Mansell, and I might
Speaker:have mentioned his daughter.
Speaker:I saw a clip where she was interviewed, so Michael Mansell and
Speaker:his daughter were both no campaigners.
Speaker:And the reason was that they wanted, they saw the voices being useless,
Speaker:and they wanted genuine power in the sense of members, indigenous
Speaker:members in the Senate, or they wanted a treaty or, or other things, and
Speaker:they saw the voices being useless.
Speaker:So here's a little bit of Michael Mansell's daughter.
Speaker:We've had advisory bodies advising government about
Speaker:closing the gap for 14 years now.
Speaker:It's not an issue of the government not having enough
Speaker:advice from Aboriginal people.
Speaker:The issue here is that the government aren't willing to listen to the
Speaker:advice or act on that advice.
Speaker:While many of Tasmania's most powerful current and...
Speaker:Just pausing there.
Speaker:I've been banging on about that for months.
Speaker:Years.
Speaker:And people just call me a white feathery nose.
Speaker:Nothin but there's somebody who knows something about it, who
Speaker:says exactly the same thing.
Speaker:can support the voice, influential Aboriginal groups do not.
Speaker:This is not going to see any land returned, this is not going to help
Speaker:incarceration rates, it's not going to support Aboriginal sovereignty
Speaker:or self determination, so we say no.
Speaker:We want what was stolen from us, and that was certainly not an advisory body.
Speaker:So, that was, that was her.
Speaker:Now let me find another video.
Speaker:This time I was watching this is the sort of post referendum wrap up on the
Speaker:ABC and here's Michael Mansell talking about the failure of the Yes campaign.
Speaker:I want to bring in Parliamentary Leader Michael Mansell in Tasmania in Hobart
Speaker:tonight, Michael good to see you.
Speaker:Why do you think Australians voted no tonight?
Speaker:This was a, an awful campaign that was run by both the Prime
Speaker:Minister and the Yes campaign.
Speaker:At no stage did they put forward a compelling case as to why.
Speaker:An advisory body should be entrenched in the Constitution.
Speaker:Instead, the whole campaign was based on emotion.
Speaker:They were saying, you know, all the ads.
Speaker:You might recall all the ads showing disadvantage, disadvantage, and then
Speaker:somehow stitching that to the advisory body as a solution, and at no stage
Speaker:did the Yes campaign explain how an advisory body could do that which the
Speaker:Prime Minister, state governments, and the peak organisations couldn't.
Speaker:Exactly what I've been saying and asking people to give me an
Speaker:example and nobody ever could.
Speaker:But what, what would I know?
Speaker:Instead of taking on that core issue and explaining to people here is why
Speaker:this is so good, they just expected people to jump on board emotionally.
Speaker:If you are not a racist Aboriginal, you'll vote for this.
Speaker:And of course it worked with some people, but obviously not enough.
Speaker:I think he has his finger on the pulse as to what happened, and
Speaker:a bit more from Michael Mansell
Speaker:here we go with him.
Speaker:The Liberal and National Party, very cleverly, allowed two black
Speaker:faces to lead the no campaign, and Peter Dutton and David Littleproud
Speaker:were then able to sit behind them.
Speaker:and let the two Aboriginal candidates run the no case, and it was very effective.
Speaker:And instead of the yes campaign explaining why the arguments from Jacinta Price and
Speaker:Warren Mundine were not valid people like Marcia Langton and Pat Dodson and other
Speaker:people you know, use the old racist tag.
Speaker:This proposal was not about sharing power with Aboriginal people.
Speaker:This was about leaving Aboriginal people on the outside, trying
Speaker:to influence the power brokers and of course it didn't work.
Speaker:And even if it had worked, it wouldn't have made the least bit of difference.
Speaker:And all of those campaigns by the yes, yes people saying, you know, when they
Speaker:raise the expectations of Aboriginal people, that your lives will be better.
Speaker:Will this young child have a future?
Speaker:I mean, that was pretty underhanded.
Speaker:So they shouldn't particularly point the finger at the no camp.
Speaker:They should look a bit in the mirror and just see how they run their campaign.
Speaker:There we go.
Speaker:It says it all.
Speaker:I was interested the we want what was stolen from us.
Speaker:Mm-hmm.
Speaker:. Oh, what was stolen was the whole of Australia.
Speaker:Yes.
Speaker:And, and it was, and it was from So is that white?
Speaker:His ancestors is from his ancestors.
Speaker:It wasn't stolen from him because it was, it was an event that had preceded
Speaker:him, but does that mean white people out?
Speaker:I, it was a very nebulous statement, wasn't it?
Speaker:Yeah.
Speaker:Obviously, I don't agree with everything he says, but Well, it's
Speaker:his daughter, actually, but...
Speaker:Treaty and reparations.
Speaker:So, on the same, sort of, program on the panel at ABC they had a guy, Wesley Aird.
Speaker:Now, he's an Indigenous advocate.
Speaker:He's from the Gold Coast Aboriginal community.
Speaker:He's worked in Indigenous affairs for over 25 years.
Speaker:He was in the Army.
Speaker:He was first Indigenous graduate from the Royal Military College at Duntroon.
Speaker:And yeah, he's obviously a right winger Indigenous advocate.
Speaker:I hadn't come across him before until I saw him on this panel, but he had been
Speaker:on Q& A, I subsequently discovered.
Speaker:So, here's what he was saying in this panel discussion.
Speaker:And let me find a little clip for you.
Speaker:Wesley Eyred
Speaker:is this guy.
Speaker:And the Director of the Centre for Indigenous Training and former
Speaker:Coalition Advisor during the Howard and Abbott years, Wesley Eyred.
Speaker:When I look back on the statistics around the Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Speaker:Islander Commission all those years ago, there were a lot of Indigenous
Speaker:people that weren't active in that.
Speaker:And the reason they weren't is because they were involved in the economy.
Speaker:Mum and dad were going to work, kids were going to school.
Speaker:You know, we do have a fairly urban and suburban indigenous population.
Speaker:A lot of indigenous people are active in the economy.
Speaker:So I think that instead of collectivising Indigenous people and saying, you
Speaker:know, it's us 3 percent versus you 97%.
Speaker:Maybe we should fund need and focus on need and address it where we can according
Speaker:to households and their lived experiences and assist people where we, where we can.
Speaker:Because I think Indigenous disadvantage is going to be overcome.
Speaker:Probably one household at a time.
Speaker:Young kids need role models.
Speaker:They need to go to school.
Speaker:You know, we shouldn't lose sight that there is a struggle ahead of us,
Speaker:but I think it's going to be a very personal struggle from here on in.
Speaker:Does that argument sound familiar, Joe?
Speaker:Yes, might have heard it once or twice.
Speaker:Yeah, but, you know, I'm just insensitive white fella who knows fuck all if I
Speaker:say it, but he'll be dismissed because he's a right winger who used to work in
Speaker:the Howard government in some respect.
Speaker:So he'll be, you know, because of who you are, your argument is shit, rather
Speaker:than what is the actual argument.
Speaker:Yeah, I mean, the racism towards Lydia Thorpe and Jacinta Price.
Speaker:Was quite impressive, because they had the wrong views of a black person, and
Speaker:therefore they could be discounted.
Speaker:Yes.
Speaker:Coconuts.
Speaker:Yes.
Speaker:Ah, there we go.
Speaker:So,
Speaker:I've run through the first notes of this section, Joe, of The Voice, but
Speaker:it really, it just really strikes me of a failure of our public
Speaker:intellectuals, a failure of our, our media to deal with the topics that...
Speaker:We've dealt with on this podcast.
Speaker:Nobody else has talked about them.
Speaker:And Orwellian doublespeak where the racist, the people promoting racist
Speaker:policy are accusing the people who want to be colourblind of being racist.
Speaker:Well, but also Albanese, if you really wanted to do something, there's
Speaker:a royal commission from, I don't know what it was, 10, 15 years ago?
Speaker:That none of the, or very few of the, recommendations have been implemented.
Speaker:And I think that was Aboriginal deaths in custody, I don't know.
Speaker:There was definitely a Royal Commission where nothing happened.
Speaker:None of the recommendations.
Speaker:It's like, why not start with that?
Speaker:Mm, yeah.
Speaker:So, so that's where we're at I hope.
Speaker:I hold that the debate will improve.
Speaker:I hope that people like Wesley Eyred...
Speaker:Get some sort of better airplay, but I hold out no hope.
Speaker:He'll be accused of being some Warren Mundine or Jacinta
Speaker:Price type of character.
Speaker:And that will dismiss his arguments without them being properly examined.
Speaker:But for me what I heard there was spot on.
Speaker:We should be talking about disadvantage.
Speaker:There's a significant middle class, upper middle class, well
Speaker:to do Indigenous population.
Speaker:They're doing fine.
Speaker:Let's look at disadvantage, but there we go.
Speaker:So, that's the wrap of the Indigenous issue and good on you in the chat
Speaker:room for the people who have been making their comments and I don't
Speaker:know that there's anything there.
Speaker:John says, I thought you were a Bernard fanboy.
Speaker:I, I like Bernard Keane on certain things.
Speaker:It just goes to show John that when I think somebody's speaking shit,
Speaker:I'll say they're speaking shit.
Speaker:They're saying something, an argument that's good, I'll say it's good.
Speaker:It just doesn't matter who they are, it's the argument itself that is important.
Speaker:I was with somebody else recently, who was that?
Speaker:Can't remember.
Speaker:But, yeah, it's the merits of the argument itself that's important,
Speaker:not the person saying it.
Speaker:And too often...
Speaker:Well, so it should be.
Speaker:Yeah, too often the Yes Campaign just will dismiss an argument by
Speaker:dismissing the person proposing it, rather than dealing with the issue.
Speaker:And that's where we've got to, where we've got to.
Speaker:Surely, we'll take a break without people talking about Treaty or truth
Speaker:telling Joe, but surely they can tell there's no appetite for Treaty.
Speaker:I don't know, it depends on how, Lydia thought was very much Treaty first.
Speaker:Yes.
Speaker:And I don't know how much coverage she will get.
Speaker:I know the right wing press hates her because there were lots of articles about
Speaker:her behavior outside of nightclubs, so I don't know what was going on there,
Speaker:but I think that if the yes vote or the yes campaign falls apart, then
Speaker:it may be, it may well be people like Lydia Thorpe pushing for the treaty.
Speaker:And I can see them very much being fought tooth and nail by Landon and the like.
Speaker:Yeah, so if you come in late to the podcast Scott's not here because
Speaker:he's out of town, out of where he normally is and without internet,
Speaker:so he wasn't able to join us.
Speaker:But Joe is now acting not only as our tech guy, but as our UK correspondent.
Speaker:Coming in loud and clear from Devon, so, there we go.
Speaker:Right, well, Joe, let's have a quick talk about Palestine and
Speaker:Israel and the latest there.
Speaker:Just a couple of things I wanted to mention.
Speaker:Ursula von der Leyen.
Speaker:Ursula von der Leyen she's some sort of like, something to do with the
Speaker:European Commission of some sort.
Speaker:She's always giving speeches and she's on Twitter quoted as saying, Russia's
Speaker:attacks against civilian infrastructure, especially electricity, are war crimes.
Speaker:Cutting off men, women, children of water, electricity and heating with
Speaker:winter coming, these are acts of pure terror and we have to call it as such.
Speaker:So that was her opinion about Russia and its actions against the Ukraine.
Speaker:Meanwhile, turning to Palestine and...
Speaker:Israel, she wrote, at the dawn of Shabbat last Saturday, the
Speaker:whole world woke up in horror.
Speaker:The terrorist attack by Hamas is an act of war, and we fully support
Speaker:Israel's right to defend itself.
Speaker:Defend itself, yes.
Speaker:Impose.
Speaker:Punitive action on an entire population?
Speaker:Definitely not.
Speaker:Hmm, yeah.
Speaker:I mean, it seems that they've cut off water, electricity.
Speaker:They have.
Speaker:And they've been bombing buildings.
Speaker:Yes.
Speaker:Clearly, civilians are going to die and have died.
Speaker:And, well, that's collateral damage.
Speaker:That's allowable.
Speaker:Yes.
Speaker:But the cutting off water and electricity is definitely a no no.
Speaker:Yes.
Speaker:From the Israeli point of view...
Speaker:And I've spoken to a Jewish person about this, you know, when the Palestinians
Speaker:broke out of Gaza and gunned down women and children and babies, that
Speaker:was seen as being significantly worse than Israel blowing up an entire
Speaker:apartment block where there would be women and babies and children.
Speaker:They see that as two different, morally different things.
Speaker:I don't know that it is.
Speaker:Yeah, I mean, it's one of those trolley problems, isn't it?
Speaker:You could argue that one is an intentional act and the other one is indiscriminate.
Speaker:So, you're aiming for the soldiers and you're accidentally killing
Speaker:civilians rather than deliberately going out and targeting civilians.
Speaker:Yes.
Speaker:But you know you're going to be killing civilians.
Speaker:You know it's going to mitigate that, yes.
Speaker:Yes.
Speaker:But you've got people who are elderly, can't get up and down stairs, elevators
Speaker:don't work, you know, or whatever.
Speaker:Hamas are hiding out in tunnels under the Gaza Strip anyway, so bombing
Speaker:above ground is doing nothing anyway.
Speaker:And this is the group, Israel, who had no idea that the attack
Speaker:was coming, and now suddenly...
Speaker:Have all the intelligence to say, well, if we bomb this particular building,
Speaker:we know that's a Hamas building.
Speaker:But they didn't have the intelligence before to tell them
Speaker:about the strike that was coming.
Speaker:But suddenly they've got the intelligence to tell them where they're, you
Speaker:know, hiding and which building.
Speaker:So, halt on both sides.
Speaker:And, yeah is one more morally reprehensible than the other?
Speaker:I'm not so sure.
Speaker:But you will never convince people.
Speaker:Once they're in one of those camps, it's very, it's impossible for people
Speaker:who are so distraught to sort of overcome the bias that has been forced
Speaker:on them, so, yeah, one person I was speaking to, their, their niece.
Speaker:Was there, and she got to a service station when they were attacked.
Speaker:Everybody in the service station died, except for her, because
Speaker:she was hiding in a cupboard.
Speaker:Like, what an experience.
Speaker:So, sounds like school shootings in the US.
Speaker:Yes, it does, doesn't it?
Speaker:Yeah.
Speaker:We had headlines saying 40 babies murdered by Hamas, and cutting the
Speaker:throats of babies in a massacre.
Speaker:And we had Joe Biden more or less confirming that he'd seen pictures, but
Speaker:then they'd be walking back to say, well, actually, there is no proof of that.
Speaker:So, but that is in the minds of some people now that Amass had murdered
Speaker:babies by cutting off their throats.
Speaker:Although apparently the IDF have now released photos of mutilated children.
Speaker:So it may not have been that particular incident, but apparently
Speaker:there is now photographic evidence.
Speaker:Also worth noting, Bellingcat, who are open source investigative journalists.
Speaker:Do you have a section on social media misinformation?
Speaker:And they were debunking a number of videos going, this is claimed
Speaker:to be from the latest outbreak.
Speaker:Actually, it's from 10 years ago and is in a different part of the world.
Speaker:So there's, there's a very interesting if I think it's Bellingcat.
Speaker:org, just Google Belling cat as in putting a bell on a cat.
Speaker:And they have a Palestine, Israel, Israel.
Speaker:page that is updated with the various things that they've debunked.
Speaker:Yeah.
Speaker:What did the White House say?
Speaker:So the thing that gets me about the way the White House operates, Joe, is
Speaker:these spokespersons come out and answer questions on behalf of the administration.
Speaker:And how are they supposed to be able to read the mind of the
Speaker:president on a whole range of issues?
Speaker:I just don't know how that's supposed to work, where.
Speaker:People are asking them, what's the administration's position on this and
Speaker:this and this, and in any event, one of the spokespeople is Corinne Jean Pierre,
Speaker:and at a press briefing on Wednesday, she responded to a question about certain
Speaker:progressive lawmakers calling for a ceasefire and a de escalation of violence.
Speaker:So she was asked about this.
Speaker:proposed ceasefire in the Gaza.
Speaker:And she said, quote, I've seen some of those statements this weekend.
Speaker:We're going to continue to be very clear.
Speaker:We believe they're wrong.
Speaker:We believe they're repugnant.
Speaker:And we believe they're disgraceful.
Speaker:This is to the idea of a ceasefire.
Speaker:Is repugnant and disgraceful.
Speaker:As he goes on, our condemnation belongs squarely with terrorists who have
Speaker:brutally murdered, raped, kidnapped hundreds, hundreds of Israelis.
Speaker:There can be no equivocation about that.
Speaker:There are not two sides here.
Speaker:There are not two sides.
Speaker:So there you go that's apparently the Biden administration's
Speaker:view on the conflict.
Speaker:Just finally, Joe.
Speaker:Was listening to something and I can't remember what they were
Speaker:talking about, the west sorry.
Speaker:Gaza Strip.
Speaker:And apparently Hamas had seized power, so I dunno that they were elected.
Speaker:Yeah, I don't know either.
Speaker:I've also been hearing stories that Israel more or less encouraged Hamas
Speaker:because they didn't want the more reasonable groups there offering.
Speaker:Reasonable peace terms, but I haven't got to the bottom of that yet, but
Speaker:a sort of a Machiavellian type of argument that, that Israel encouraged.
Speaker:There's also
Speaker:arguments that the Israeli government knew of the attacks, unless it
Speaker:happened, to galvanize public support.
Speaker:Yes.
Speaker:All these sorts of Machiavellian things that may or may not be true, who knows,
Speaker:so, There's also concern that Hezbollah and the Lebanon will join up because
Speaker:they are also, it's a Iranian front, so they're supported and funded by Iran.
Speaker:Yeah.
Speaker:And just finally, Joe, just back to the US, so Robert Kennedy Jr.,
Speaker:our favourite anti vaxxer Yeah.
Speaker:He's announced that he's going to be running as an independent, so,
Speaker:the interesting thing in America, dear listener, is they don't have
Speaker:preferential voting, so if you, if you split, say, the, let's assume
Speaker:for example that Robert Kennedy Jr.
Speaker:is going to split the Democratic vote, that may not be the case, but just assume
Speaker:that that's the case, so whereas before it might have been, you know, 50 50.
Speaker:And then suddenly, maybe 15 percent or 10 percent of Democrat voters go
Speaker:to Robert Kennedy, then Trump wins.
Speaker:And they've also got this Cornell of a name, who's also looking at running.
Speaker:And this might be an election where there is some significant independents
Speaker:running, who might split these votes.
Speaker:And open the door to a Trump victory, even though, even
Speaker:without that, he's in the lead.
Speaker:Anything is possible in this upcoming US election.
Speaker:Well, assuming he's picked as the Republican candidate, because if he
Speaker:doesn't, then he'll run as an Independent, which will split the Republican vote.
Speaker:Yes.
Speaker:So, there's no opportunity for preferential voting
Speaker:where you as we do have here.
Speaker:So, that is going to make that election really interesting as
Speaker:these independent candidates appear.
Speaker:And someone like Robert Kennedy Jr., is he going to take Democratic votes or
Speaker:is he going to take Republican votes?
Speaker:Because...
Speaker:He's such a weird character on some of these policies.
Speaker:Anything's possible.
Speaker:I'm not sure, but, yes, I mean, the anti vax actually is a
Speaker:left wing thing, historically.
Speaker:It was very much a rich parent worried about their poor little babies and autism.
Speaker:Hippie flower child, sort of.
Speaker:Absolutely.
Speaker:And that tended to be much more left leaning.
Speaker:It was only COVID that it really started to become a right wing thing.
Speaker:Yes.
Speaker:John in the chat room says, The Pep podcast did a really
Speaker:good deep dive on RKJr.
Speaker:His popularity will probably fall off a cliff.
Speaker:Says John.
Speaker:Okay.
Speaker:Watley the Wizard says almost certainly the Israeli government
Speaker:knew about it beforehand.
Speaker:John also says Hamas were elected.
Speaker:No, no, he says Humas was elected.
Speaker:Yeah, Humas, yes.
Speaker:Hey so yeah, that's that.
Speaker:Well, look, it's a quick episode.
Speaker:We don't have Scott here.
Speaker:And ah, in the aftermath of the voice referendum, I think
Speaker:that's enough for an episode.
Speaker:People over there, Joe, as our UK correspondent, what's
Speaker:happening on the ground in the UK?
Speaker:What do we need to know?
Speaker:Or what are they, anybody over there think that Australia is now a bunch
Speaker:of racist assholes as a result, or they don't even know about it?
Speaker:I did see a news thing of what was the international coverage,
Speaker:and it really was a damp squib.
Speaker:There wasn't much international coverage, and most of it just said...
Speaker:The referendum failed and I think the people who were trying to collate all
Speaker:of that were making an argument that Australia was being seen as racist again.
Speaker:But I didn't, I didn't see from the headlines I saw, I didn't read it as
Speaker:painting a particularly bad picture.
Speaker:Yeah.
Speaker:But really, the rest of the world doesn't care about Australia.
Speaker:I know it's, it's hard to hear, but that's the, the brutal truth.
Speaker:It's so far away that people just don't pay attention.
Speaker:They've got their own little worries.
Speaker:In the chat room, Watley the Wizard said Watley said, this is, because you,
Speaker:because John Hummus, rather, Watley says, so Israel went to war with...
Speaker:Surely Tavulli would get in on the action.
Speaker:I thought Watley was just, just joking.
Speaker:I hope it wasn't a picking on your spelling.
Speaker:Yeah, well, there we go.
Speaker:That's a big event in Australian political history, social, you know,
Speaker:little study society course that we've got here on the Velvet Glove.
Speaker:Thanks for tuning in.
Speaker:Thanks for listening.
Speaker:And we'll be back next week with something.
Speaker:We'll see what happens.
Speaker:Talk to you then.
Speaker:Bye for now.
Speaker:And it's a good note from him.
Speaker:Yeah.
