Shownotes
In this episode, I talk about:
(00:24) Introduction
(14:59) History
(27:17) The Proposal
(31:18) Ideas about Racism
(49:04) Ideas about Class and Identity Politics
(01:12:18) Not Heard
(01:14:46) Name an issue that The Voice would've improved
(01:35:20) Bike Shedding
Chapters, images & show notes powered by vizzy.fm.
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.
We have a website. www.ironfistvelvetglove.com.au
You can email us. The address is trevor@ironfistvelvetglove.com.au
Transcripts
We need to talk about ideas, good ones and bad ones.
Speaker:We need to learn stuff about the world.
Speaker:We need an honest, intelligent, thought provoking and entertaining
Speaker:review of what the hell happened on this planet in the last seven days.
Speaker:We need to sit back and listen to the Iron Fist and the Velvet Glove.
Speaker:Hello and welcome, dear listener.
Speaker:This is...
Speaker:Episode 402 of the Iron Fist and the Velvet Glove podcast.
Speaker:This is one that's pre recorded, not done live on a Tuesday night.
Speaker:It's just me, no Joe, no Scott, and I'm going to talk about the voice
Speaker:and Indigenous issues because I've got a lot of notes and I just need
Speaker:to basically tell you the stuff I've found, talk about it because I'd feel
Speaker:really disappointed if It was all left on the shelf and never discussed,
Speaker:even though we've already done a few episodes on Indigenous matters, so...
Speaker:This is going to be a long one, it's just going to be me talking solo.
Speaker:Hopefully you'll find it informative and entertaining.
Speaker:Right, the voice.
Speaker:Why should we vote yes for the voice?
Speaker:The official yes case is that it will provide recognition.
Speaker:of Indigenous people.
Speaker:And secondly, that by listening to what Indigenous people want,
Speaker:we'll get better results and better outcomes for Indigenous people.
Speaker:That's it in a nutshell.
Speaker:First off, I've got no problem with the recognition aspect.
Speaker:Any clauses or amendments or additions that simply want to recognise historical
Speaker:facts about Indigenous occupation of Australia, makes perfect sense to probably
Speaker:put in the preamble to explain how we got to the point that we got to when
Speaker:we sat down to write the constitution.
Speaker:That makes sense.
Speaker:So anything to do with recognition, I'm not really going to be
Speaker:dealing with because I accept that recognition is a good idea.
Speaker:But I would also say that can be done without giving a voice.
Speaker:So really the main argument that I'm gonna be dealing with then is this argument that
Speaker:indigenous people have not been heard.
Speaker:That the voice will provide a mechanism for listening that hasn't been there
Speaker:before, or at least hasn't been as good, and that . As a result, there will be
Speaker:better outcomes for indigenous people.
Speaker:So, I've got a little introductory sort of bit which will go for probably five
Speaker:or ten minutes and then various ideas, various articles, various people that I'll
Speaker:be quoting, but I thought I'd just sort of give my pitch and I'm really saying
Speaker:this not because I'm actually have a strong desire to convince you one way or
Speaker:another it's just more for my own benefit.
Speaker:And it's also just to add to the kit bag of knowledge that
Speaker:listeners have about the topic.
Speaker:And if you choose to come to a different conclusion to me, I'm not particularly
Speaker:offended to tell you the truth.
Speaker:So, yeah, I'm not a I'm not a preacher for this.
Speaker:I'm just analysing what I see and stating what I see without
Speaker:a, without a strong compulsion
Speaker:It might seem that that's not the case as we go on, but in any event,
Speaker:that's where I'm coming from.
Speaker:All right.
Speaker:So here's my introductory remarks.
Speaker:So the yes vote argues that Indigenous people have not been heard.
Speaker:The voice is a way of ensuring they are heard, and if they are heard,
Speaker:then better outcomes will follow.
Speaker:I think that's a fair summary.
Speaker:I say that is not correct.
Speaker:I say that Indigenous people have been heard, governments
Speaker:have consulted with Indigenous stakeholders on numerous problems,
Speaker:but those problems remain unsolved.
Speaker:It's actually insulting to thousands of good people working for decades in
Speaker:the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and other departments to suggest they
Speaker:have been implementing programs without consulting Indigenous stakeholders.
Speaker:It insults well meaning ministers and staff to suggest they are so
Speaker:stupid, biased or lazy that they haven't consulted Indigenous opinion.
Speaker:We'll talk about the history in a moment, but since 1973 there have
Speaker:been five national Indigenous bodies advising Australian governments.
Speaker:Indigenous people are over represented in our Federal Parliament.
Speaker:And as different topics have been raised with me and I've investigated
Speaker:the background to them, I've been impressed by the level of
Speaker:consultation in various reports.
Speaker:I think the people who are alleging that Indigenous people have not been heard,
Speaker:really should have placed caveats,
Speaker:I think they should have been more careful with their words.
Speaker:You know, the thousands of people who have worked to try and help Indigenous
Speaker:people, that they haven't been consulting?
Speaker:It's, it's like a giant conspiracy, in a sense.
Speaker:Or are we not supposed to really take it seriously?
Speaker:Oh, there has been some consultation, but not good enough.
Speaker:Well, we'll then say that.
Speaker:But very often it's a blanket statement.
Speaker:We Indigenous people have not been heard.
Speaker:It's a nonsense.
Speaker:So, when Noel Pearson says we have not been heard , an empathetic response
Speaker:is to look at the outcomes and assume he is correct, but he is not.
Speaker:So what does it mean?
Speaker:It means despite Indigenous advice, the problems persist,
Speaker:so something else is needed.
Speaker:So that's the conclusion I come to.
Speaker:Despite Indigenous advice, the problems persist.
Speaker:How could Indigenous advice fail so badly?
Speaker:Well, you should not put oil industry executives in charge
Speaker:of solving climate change.
Speaker:You should not put Indigenous culture warriors in charge of solving a
Speaker:problem which requires cultural change.
Speaker:We'll get to that.
Speaker:If Indigenous people are to thrive in a modern 21st century first world
Speaker:community, then they need to embrace that community and drop cultural impediments.
Speaker:that prevent proper participation.
Speaker:So I'm not saying that people have to assimilate and become
Speaker:Western and drop everything.
Speaker:But I am saying that if you want to compare Indigenous communities to
Speaker:the rest of Australia, you're not really comparing apples with apples.
Speaker:You're comparing two different communities.
Speaker:You should be surprised If there are not differences, Indigenous advocates
Speaker:have failed to recommend that there are problems with cultural impediments.
Speaker:The voice will not recommend changing culture.
Speaker:Programs will continue to fail until cultural roadblocks
Speaker:are recognised and discarded.
Speaker:I'll get on to some of those.
Speaker:To repeat, I'm not saying people have to assimilate.
Speaker:But if you want to measure closing the gap by comparing Indigenous outcomes
Speaker:with mainstream outcomes, you're not comparing apples with apples until the
Speaker:Indigenous community joins the mainstream.
Speaker:At this point, yes, voters would argue that the voice will at least provide
Speaker:more information, and that can't be bad.
Speaker:Even if things are unlikely to prove, they might improve, so why not try it?
Speaker:And my answer to that is...
Speaker:Because the voice encourages racism, it promotes racial thinking, it divides our
Speaker:community by the social construct of race.
Speaker:It is divisive, now that's bad enough as a general characteristic, but
Speaker:that promotion of racial difference makes closing the gap even harder.
Speaker:Promoting racial difference to help solve closing the gap.
Speaker:is like throwing fuel on a fire that you're trying to extinguish.
Speaker:So the voice, I say, imagines a consultation problem that isn't there
Speaker:and promotes a racially divisive solution that is harmful to our
Speaker:entire society and is especially harmful to those Indigenous people
Speaker:needing cultural change to solve their
Speaker:I'm a bit saddened by the calibre of debate.
Speaker:Yes advocates who promote a racially divisive policy accuse no voters of
Speaker:Orwellian doublespeak when it is the yes advocates who are guilty of doublespeak.
Speaker:This is a proposal that's giving special lobbying rights to a racial group.
Speaker:Now some of those members of that group might be suffering terrible poverty
Speaker:and other circumstances but this is , a right to lobby based on race.
Speaker:Just because you feel sorry for a group, doesn't mean you
Speaker:give them whatever they want.
Speaker:I understand people's empathy.
Speaker:I understand people looking at remote, poor communities and thinking,
Speaker:Let's just do something, anything.
Speaker:Let's try it even if it probably won't work.
Speaker:Let's just give it a go.
Speaker:But just because you feel sorry for a group, doesn't mean you
Speaker:give them whatever they want.
Speaker:How did that work out with the Jews and the State of Israel?
Speaker:Yes advocates abhor racism, but often resort to promoting racial difference
Speaker:when justifying their yes vote.
Speaker:It's incredible to me that these people who are critical of racism
Speaker:rely on racism to promote their ideas.
Speaker:Ideas such as Aboriginal people have a special attachment to the land,
Speaker:Indigenous people carry within them a cultural history of 60, 000 years.
Speaker:Indigenous people inherit the pain and trauma of their ancestors.
Speaker:Indigenous people know what is best for Indigenous people,
Speaker:as if they all think the same.
Speaker:These are often described as biologically inherited traits,
Speaker:as opposed to cultural practices.
Speaker:The wording may not always be that explicit, but it's implied.
Speaker:There's a lot of woo thrown in with this stuff.
Speaker:There's a lot of inherent characteristics.
Speaker:Ascribe to Indigenous people.
Speaker:These ideas are laced with racism, yet yes advocates can't see it.
Speaker:I highly value universal rights.
Speaker:Equal rights are important to me.
Speaker:When Christians want special privileges or special exemptions, I
Speaker:say no, we all share the same rights.
Speaker:You don't get special rights just because you're a member of a cultural group.
Speaker:And in a previous episode I gave the example of a thought experiment
Speaker:of an Islamic voice to parliament.
Speaker:I said perhaps they too could prove a form of racism or xenophobia.
Speaker:Higher incarceration rates for Muslims.
Speaker:Poorer income.
Speaker:Poorer health outcomes.
Speaker:They too could claim they're not heard and need a voice.
Speaker:And in countering...
Speaker:The call for an Islamic voice.
Speaker:I'd be able to say no We have an equal rights policy here.
Speaker:No special lobbying rights for cultural or religious groups Yes advocates
Speaker:for the indigenous cause if ethically consistent Couldn't say that because
Speaker:really if you're voting yes You're saying cultural groups can get special
Speaker:rights if things are bad enough all a yes advocate could say to a proposed
Speaker:Islamic voice is your outcomes at the moment aren't bad enough to justify this.
Speaker:Now this isn't said as a slippery slope argument.
Speaker:There's no call for an Islamic voice, and I don't think there will be.
Speaker:It's a hypothetical case to demonstrate the principle of
Speaker:consistent ethical and moral positions.
Speaker:So I don't say do nothing.
Speaker:There are better solutions.
Speaker:I'm happy to spend triple, quadruple, whatever amount of money
Speaker:is necessary on poor Indigenous communities to help them get ahead.
Speaker:I say we should focus on class, not race.
Speaker:Many black American leaders would agree with me, I'll be talking about that.
Speaker:I say we need experts on poverty, not race.
Speaker:If this voice to parliament was to be made up of experts on, on, on getting people
Speaker:out of poverty, social science experts, other experts regardless of colour.
Speaker:I might be more inclined to agree to it, but this this assumption that people
Speaker:of a certain race know what's best for a certain race is a racist idea.
Speaker:It assumes people think the same.
Speaker:Imagine if I tried to speak on behalf of all white people, as if
Speaker:all white people think the same.
Speaker:A big part of the problem is maintaining traditional cultural
Speaker:lifestyles in remote locations.
Speaker:We need experts on changing culture, not experts on maintaining cultural purity.
Speaker:There we go.
Speaker:That was the initial blurb.
Speaker:Let's talk about some history so we've got some context for all of this.
Speaker:Since 1973, there have been five national Indigenous bodies
Speaker:advising Australian governments.
Speaker:Four were elected and one was appointed.
Speaker:I'm getting all this from Wikipedia, by the way.
Speaker:1973 to 1976 we had the N A C C, the National Aboriginal
Speaker:Consultative Committee.
Speaker:What are we in now, dear listener?
Speaker:So that was, that was 50 years ago was the first of the National
Speaker:Indigenous advisory bodies created by the Whitlam government.
Speaker:Its principle function was to advise the Department of Aboriginal Affairs.
Speaker:and the Minister on issues of concern to Aboriginal and
Speaker:Torres Strait Islander peoples.
Speaker:That, to me, is a perfectly sensible committee to have.
Speaker:Advising the Government on Indigenous Affairs, directly advising the
Speaker:Minister for Aboriginal Affairs.
Speaker:Perfectly fine.
Speaker:The NACC saw itself as a legislative body, while Government expected
Speaker:them to be purely advisory.
Speaker:This along with other conflicts led to the end of the organization and the
Speaker:Fraser government , concluded it hadn't functioned as a consultative committee
Speaker:and had not been effective in providing advice or making its activities known
Speaker:to most Aboriginal people in 1977.
Speaker:We then had the N A C C reconstituted as the National
Speaker:Aboriginal Congress, the n a c.
Speaker:And this had indirect voting of members and a more explicit advisory role.
Speaker:Hawke government commissioned the Coombs Review, which found the body was
Speaker:not held in high regard by Aboriginal communities, and it was abolished.
Speaker:So then the Hawke government, in 1990 established ATSIC, the Aboriginal and
Speaker:Torres Strait Islander Commission.
Speaker:And it was an elected body which had responsibility.
Speaker:Not only for advising government, but for administering Indigenous
Speaker:programs and service delivery.
Speaker:It was successful in some areas as being a combined deliverer of services,
Speaker:however there was a low voter turnout for ATSIC elections, there were
Speaker:allegations of corruption, lack of government support led to the demise
Speaker:of that organisation, eventually abolished by the Howard Government.
Speaker:Howard Government then established the NIC.
Speaker:An inquiry subsequently found that its members were respected but had no
Speaker:support in the Indigenous community and
Speaker:in 2008, the Rudd government, announced the National Congress
Speaker:of Australia's First Peoples.
Speaker:and the establishment of a body independent of government.
Speaker:Fewer than 10, 000 Indigenous people signed up as members to elect Congress
Speaker:delegates, and the Abbott government cut off its main funding in 2013.
Speaker:So that's the sort of history of previous National Indigenous advisory bodies.
Speaker:Some of them going back as much as 50 years.
Speaker:And surely in there, we have had consultation with Indigenous
Speaker:people about what to do.
Speaker:And those opinions and recommendations finding their way
Speaker:to government, yet we still have what seems like zero improvement
Speaker:in remote Indigenous communities.
Speaker:Constitutional proposals.
Speaker:The next little historical area to cover.
Speaker:The history of constitutional proposals.
Speaker:So the main one I wanna deal with is a joint select committee on constitutional
Speaker:recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people from 2013 to
Speaker:2015, which made recommendations in 2016.
Speaker:What did they recommend?
Speaker:Basically, recognize, acknowledge and respect indigenous culture.
Speaker:The relationship to land and history, put something in the constitution to say that.
Speaker:And get rid of a couple of particularly ugly sections that were in the
Speaker:constitution related to race.
Speaker:Repealing of section 25 for example.
Speaker:Section 25 says, because it's still there, for the purposes of the
Speaker:last section, if by the law of any state, or persons of any race, are
Speaker:disqualified from voting at elections.
Speaker:For the more numerous House of the Parliament of the State, then in
Speaker:reckoning the number of people of the State or of the Commonwealth,
Speaker:persons of that race resident in that State shall not be counted.
Speaker:Really, it's a section saying, if a State decides to exclude people
Speaker:from voting because of their race, then we won't count those people.
Speaker:Of course, get rid of that section.
Speaker:Terrible racist section.
Speaker:So, And including a power for the Commonwealth then to make laws
Speaker:with respect to Indigenous people.
Speaker:That was 2016.
Speaker:No mention of a voice.
Speaker:Simply, let's recognise history and culture of Indigenous people, let's get
Speaker:rid of some ugly existing provisions in the Constitution, slip in a provision
Speaker:to say, yes, the Commonwealth can make laws with respect to Indigenous people.
Speaker:No mention of a voice.
Speaker:I could easily agree to those recommendations.
Speaker:There's no special rights given to a special group in that situation.
Speaker:Michael Mansell, he's chairman of the Aboriginal Land Council of Tasmania and
Speaker:has been active in Indigenous Affairs Matters His entire life, it seems, I seem
Speaker:to recall hearing about him when I was a teenager and my mother complaining that
Speaker:he didn't look Aboriginal enough for her.
Speaker:What was he doing representing Indigenous people?
Speaker:That seemed to me something my mother was saying 40 years ago.
Speaker:He's still around.
Speaker:And what does he says it's a weak idea that
Speaker:will do nothing.
Speaker:Now, if you thought that Michael Mansell is part of the Lydia Thorpe camp,
Speaker:where basically he's a no voter because he thinks the voice doesn't go far
Speaker:enough, and he wants a treaty and other things, you'd be 100 percent correct.
Speaker:That's what he thinks.
Speaker:But he makes some interesting comments about the Constitution.
Speaker:He says, The normal process for friendly governments advancing the cause of
Speaker:Aboriginal people is through legislation.
Speaker:When Gough Whitlam wanted to remedy racial discrimination in 1975,
Speaker:he did not hold a referendum.
Speaker:He legislated the Racial Discrimination Act.
Speaker:When Malcolm Fraser wanted to give land to Aboriginals in the Northern Territory,
Speaker:he did not ask for a referendum.
Speaker:His government enacted the Northern Territory Land Rights Act.
Speaker:Likewise, when Paul Keating promised to shore up native title,
Speaker:he did not go to a referendum.
Speaker:He legislated the Native Title Act 1993.
Speaker:Legislation is the normal way to change things.
Speaker:I'm still quoting Michael Mansell here.
Speaker:He says the Australian Constitution is an agreement between former British
Speaker:colonies to form a federation of states with a national parliament
Speaker:and a court to resolve disputes.
Speaker:Its purpose is not to declare human rights.
Speaker:I agree with him.
Speaker:Think about it.
Speaker:Land rights is such an important component of Indigenous rights, and
Speaker:it just happened by legislation.
Speaker:It's way more important than a voice to parliament.
Speaker:And it was just done by legislation.
Speaker:Any good ideas out there to deal with Indigenous people and improving their
Speaker:lot can be done by legislation tomorrow.
Speaker:This is the Noel Pearson thought bubble that's just got out of control.
Speaker:He goes on, Michael Mansell.
Speaker:The proposal for a so called voice that cannot return land, raise a tax,
Speaker:have no resources to distribute, or deliver no services, He's not able
Speaker:to stop a racist law or even build a single house for the Aboriginal homeless
Speaker:means it is a shockingly weak idea.
Speaker:The whole voice idea has sucked many in emotionally.
Speaker:The Yes campaign uses emotion to win over well meaning people.
Speaker:Think rationally.
Speaker:I'm still quoting Michael Mansell here, sounds like me to some extent.
Speaker:Think rationally.
Speaker:How could an advisory body diminish racism or close the gap?
Speaker:When a Prime Minister, State Premiers, and Peak Aboriginal
Speaker:Organisations have been unable to.
Speaker:And he goes on to say that don't need another advisory body there's
Speaker:domination by white people.
Speaker:He seeks in particular Aboriginal representation in every se in, in Senate.
Speaker:So, don't agree with that, of course, well I don't, but, interesting ideas
Speaker:about the purpose of the Constitution, and, he also in another article talks
Speaker:about the voice isn't permanent.
Speaker:Michael Mansell again says, the pro voice group claim that putting it in
Speaker:the Constitution will prevent any future Parliament from dumping the advisory body.
Speaker:That claim is factually and constitutionally wrong.
Speaker:Putting the voice in the constitution does not override parliamentary sovereignty, i.
Speaker:e.
Speaker:no parliament can bind another.
Speaker:Take this example.
Speaker:The Interstate Commission was set up under Constitutional Section
Speaker:101 which states, There shall be an Interstate Commission, blah blah blah.
Speaker:The now defunct commission was dumped in 1950, despite
Speaker:the constitutional provision.
Speaker:The same result can apply to the constitutionally entrenched voice.
Speaker:It's not permanent, dear listener.
Speaker:I haven't heard that argument from anywhere else.
Speaker:That's Michael Mansell talking about it.
Speaker:It seems legit to me.
Speaker:Interesting.
Speaker:You could think about it and say Isn't this just like ATSIC or one of those
Speaker:other groups, but in the Constitution?
Speaker:If I didn't complain about the NACC, the NAC, ATSIC or the National
Speaker:Congress of Australia's First Peoples, then why complain about the voice?
Speaker:Which is the same thing, but it's in the constitution.
Speaker:My answer is it confers rights by putting it in the constitution.
Speaker:The right to special lobbying privileges.
Speaker:I view sort of groups like ATSIC as advisors to the department.
Speaker:The department would draw up plans, taking into account stakeholder
Speaker:submissions, but charged with acting in the overall benefit of all Australians.
Speaker:With the voice, we may see competing advice to parliament.
Speaker:And The Voice will only be considering what is best for Indigenous Australians.
Speaker:We're setting up a broadcast facility for a group who will push
Speaker:for racial advantage, which will undoubtedly lead to racial division.
Speaker:They're charged with just looking after Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders.
Speaker:Not Australians overall.
Speaker:So their advice to Parliament is going to have that bias.
Speaker:It's not healthy.
Speaker:So the proposal.
Speaker:We've looked at the history of previous bodies, and we've looked at
Speaker:previous constitutional amendments.
Speaker:What are we faced with here?
Speaker:Well, we've moved on from the simple proposal of 2016, which was simply
Speaker:recognise Indigenous people, get rid of some ugly provisions, And
Speaker:put in a simple provision saying the Commonwealth has power to make laws
Speaker:with respect to Indigenous people.
Speaker:What we've got now has its genesis in 2014 in Noel Pearson's quarterly essay
Speaker:titled A rightful place, race recognition, and a more complete Commonwealth.
Speaker:So that's where he raises the concept of the voice in 2014.
Speaker:In 2016, the Referendum Council released a discussion paper, which included a call
Speaker:for an Indigenous voice to be discussed.
Speaker:This led to the First Nations National Constitutional Convention in 2017,
Speaker:whose delegates collectively composed the Uluru Statement from the Heart.
Speaker:And as the 2018 Joint Select Committee notes, the Uluru Statement
Speaker:from the Heart largely defines the parameters of the current debate.
Speaker:What does the Uluru Statement say?
Speaker:I'm paraphrasing it here, I'm using words in there, I'm just leaving a few
Speaker:words out just so that it reads clearly.
Speaker:easier for you.
Speaker:We, our people, when we have power over our destiny,
Speaker:we call for the establishment of a First Nations voice
Speaker:enshrined in the Constitution.
Speaker:Makarrata captures our aspirations for a fair and truthful relationship
Speaker:with the people of Australia based on justice and self determination.
Speaker:We seek agreement making between governments and First Nations.
Speaker:and truth telling about our history.
Speaker:So there's a lot of we, Indigenous people, making a relationship
Speaker:with the Government of Australia.
Speaker:It's about a voice which will then lead to treaty and truth telling.
Speaker:That's what the Uluru Statement's about.
Speaker:Look, again, it's full of racist thinking.
Speaker:It's dividing Australia on racial lines.
Speaker:So in a few years we went from, let's acknowledge history, get rid of racist
Speaker:concepts and treat everyone equally, the 2016 version, to our people are
Speaker:different to other Australians, we have special rights and claims and needs.
Speaker:That's, that's what's changed.
Speaker:So we've got a special referendum question, a proposed law to alter the
Speaker:constitution to recognise First Peoples of Australia by establishing the voice.
Speaker:Do you approve?
Speaker:Will be the question.
Speaker:Now, the proposed Section 129 does not mention that membership of the voice must
Speaker:be exclusively Indigenous, but that's been openly stated as a key characteristic
Speaker:and a key reason for creating the voice.
Speaker:So when I speak about the voice, I refer to the proposed Section 129 combined
Speaker:with the proposed membership eligibility restrictions, and the fact that the
Speaker:voice emerges out of the Uluru Statement and voting yes will encourage further
Speaker:claims for treaty and self determination.
Speaker:Is something to take into account.
Speaker:It's not just a question of he wear the slippery slope.
Speaker:, it's the birthplace of the voice is the Uluru statement.
Speaker:It's context.
Speaker:It is context about the voice.
Speaker:Let's talk about racism.
Speaker:If you're interested in race, there is a book by Augustine Fuentes called Race,
Speaker:monogamy, and Other Lies They told you.
Speaker:Interesting book about race.
Speaker:It'll help clarify the idea that race is a social construct.
Speaker:There is no biological evidence of racial difference.
Speaker:We are what he calls nature nurtural.
Speaker:Nature, of course, is your DNA.
Speaker:Nurture is your environment and culture.
Speaker:So.
Speaker:He says, we are a synthesis and fusion of nature and nurture.
Speaker:It's just , not a product of adding nurture to nature.
Speaker:What we think is normal, rarely arises from some inner biological
Speaker:core, rather, it's usually the result of experiences we've had.
Speaker:Grow headhunting community and you'll think headhunting's normal.
Speaker:We are who we meet.
Speaker:Our social development, schooling, gender acquisition, peer group interactions
Speaker:and parental and sibling interactions have an enormous impact on shaping
Speaker:our schemata and how our brains and bodies respond to social stimuli.
Speaker:So the way you're nurtured can affect your nature.
Speaker:If you grow up in a, in a little contact society, meaning people
Speaker:don't hug each other very much.
Speaker:And are later immersed in a high contact society.
Speaker:You might feel socially uncomfortable, you will also feel physically uncomfortable.
Speaker:You will have a physical response.
Speaker:Culture helps us to perceive what is good and right, specific to
Speaker:our historical and social context.
Speaker:Cultural construct is a concept or a belief or a social ideology
Speaker:about the world that originates within a particular society and is
Speaker:generally shared by its members.
Speaker:So in the West,
Speaker:a cultural construct would be the acceptance of the nuclear
Speaker:family as a normal mode of life.
Speaker:Social organization.
Speaker:Whereas in other societies, more extended families might be considered more normal.
Speaker:Cultural constructs are not necessarily stagnant.
Speaker:Things change.
Speaker:For example, gender roles used to be husband worked, wife,
Speaker:housewife, homemaker, and mother.
Speaker:That's changed.
Speaker:That cultural construct has changed.
Speaker:It's normal for culture to change.
Speaker:Cultures are not sacrosanct.
Speaker:They're not sacred.
Speaker:Race is not biological.
Speaker:It's a cultural construct.
Speaker:The categories are socially defined.
Speaker:Anyway, that's a bit of an intro to race and the idea of thinking about race.
Speaker:What is racism?
Speaker:According to the Human Rights Commission, racism is the process by which systems
Speaker:and policies, actions and attitudes create inequitable opportunities and
Speaker:outcomes for people based on race.
Speaker:So, I say the voice is a racist proposal.
Speaker:It uses race to determine eligibility to certain rights.
Speaker:It divides Australia into racial groups.
Speaker:It relies on the notion that Indigenous people share common
Speaker:opinions by virtue of their race.
Speaker:And that only Indigenous leaders can best collate those opinions
Speaker:and inform the government.
Speaker:And it gives a racial group special representation rights.
Speaker:Now ironically, the advocates of this racist policy often claim
Speaker:that their opponents are racist.
Speaker:Maybe they are, but it's not because they're a no voter.
Speaker:It could be a no voter with the cleanest, most anti racist view
Speaker:of how ethics should be conducted.
Speaker:Just a couple of sidelines there.
Speaker:Mentioned briefly, I'm uncomfortable with this idea.
Speaker:It seems implicit in a lot of the conversation, is that
Speaker:Indigenous people share common opinions by virtue of their race.
Speaker:Now the whole idea of the voice is to gather the opinion
Speaker:of the Indigenous community.
Speaker:And implied in that is an expectation that,
Speaker:on things that affect the Indigenous community, and the idea
Speaker:that there'll be an overwhelming consensus, quite often, in this.
Speaker:And I don't think that's the case.
Speaker:I think across the Indigenous community, there's going to be a much wider
Speaker:spectrum of opinion than people think.
Speaker:And that the voice, if it's being truthful, in representing to Parliament.
Speaker:Indigenous opinion is going to have to say more often than they'd like, well our
Speaker:community is actually divided about this.
Speaker:Because there's this broad spectrum of opinion.
Speaker:I mean, just look at some of the issues that we've faced over time.
Speaker:Some Indigenous leaders have been very poor.
Speaker:Anthony Mundine advised against vaccinations.
Speaker:Many Indigenous leaders were against marriage equality.
Speaker:Ken Wyatt is part of a government that, through reckless tax cuts,
Speaker:sabotaged the welfare system that many Indigenous people rely on.
Speaker:I'm uncomfortable with the implication in this of a consensus of Indigenous opinion.
Speaker:It smacks to me of a racist acceptance that all black people think the same.
Speaker:Even on something like income management, this came up as a topic where...
Speaker:I was looking for an example of where the voice might have made a difference,
Speaker:had the voice been in place, and somebody mentioned income management.
Speaker:Looking at reports after that decision, communities, remote Indigenous communities
Speaker:that, that, where that system was employed, are today 50 50 divided as
Speaker:to whether it was a good idea or not.
Speaker:So, it's, it's an awkward thing.
Speaker:More awkward than what people are expecting to come up
Speaker:with an Indigenous consensus.
Speaker:And a lot of reports are often stating that these things are regional matters.
Speaker:In some regions people want this, in other regions people want that.
Speaker:I guess the voice can say that, and say in this region people want this,
Speaker:and in this region people want that.
Speaker:But it seems to me there's an expectation that the voice will somehow come up
Speaker:with this Overwhelming consensus of Indigenous thought that must be there.
Speaker:Now, the intellectually honest approach would be for yes voters to admit that
Speaker:yes, the voice is racist, but, like affirmative action, gender quotas,
Speaker:etc, the ends justify the means.
Speaker:Just as discrimination can sometimes be fair, the voice is racist, but
Speaker:it's not unfair, because it seeks to help a disadvantaged group.
Speaker:That would be the intellectually honest approach for a yes voter
Speaker:to talk about this, but instead we get Orwellian doublespeak that
Speaker:the no voters are the racists.
Speaker:Saddens me, the level of debate.
Speaker:So, if somebody was to argue that, that yes it's racist, but the ends
Speaker:justify the means just like with gender quotas and affirmative action, well do
Speaker:the positives outweigh the negatives?
Speaker:And this is a judgement call, and opinions will vary, depending
Speaker:on how you prioritise things.
Speaker:So, I acknowledge there are disadvantaged Indigenous
Speaker:people, and I want to help them.
Speaker:I believe there are successful, flourishing Indigenous people
Speaker:who do not need special help.
Speaker:Just on that score in 2012, the Melbourne Writers Festival, Aboriginal author Marsha
Speaker:Langton was confident to state that there is a growing Aboriginal middle class.
Speaker:Stan Grant said, we are now in an era where we are seeing second
Speaker:generation Indigenous PhDs.
Speaker:There are class differences within the Indigenous population.
Speaker:So for me, the key criteria is disadvantage, not indigeneity.
Speaker:I don't care about race, I care about class and disadvantage.
Speaker:I think a lot of Australians voting no think the same.
Speaker:If the voice was to represent the lower class on a colourblind
Speaker:basis, I'd support it.
Speaker:True racists of the Ku Klux Klan type, see racial differences as real,
Speaker:inherent, hardwired character differences.
Speaker:Those black people are different.
Speaker:That thinking was used to justify slavery.
Speaker:It's used today to justify inequality.
Speaker:Black people don't like to work hard.
Speaker:Black people don't like to save.
Speaker:These true racists see these problems as inherited characteristics.
Speaker:We've spent several centuries disavowing that notion.
Speaker:Our DNA differences are negligible.
Speaker:Biologically we're the same.
Speaker:But now, via the politics of identity, the left wants to
Speaker:circle back to those differences.
Speaker:, your racial thinking in the voice is just encouraging racial thinking
Speaker:everywhere then, including from some nasty elements on the right.
Speaker:As Ken and Malick says, we live in an age in which most societies...
Speaker:There is moral abhorrence of racism.
Speaker:We also live in an age in which our thinking is saturated with racial
Speaker:ideology in the embrace of difference.
Speaker:The more we despise racial thinking, the more we cling to it.
Speaker:It's like an ideological version of the Stockholm Syndrome.
Speaker:That's the end of the , Kenan Malick quote.
Speaker:If the left thinks it's okay to accentuate racial difference for
Speaker:positive reasons, then it can hardly be surprised when the right accentuates
Speaker:those differences for negative reasons.
Speaker:Reopening racial profiling reopens the door to racial thinking
Speaker:and racial discrimination.
Speaker:More by Ken and Malik on racism.
Speaker:Those who call themselves progressive or anti racist often draw upon
Speaker:ideas that are deeply regressive and rooted in racial ways of thinking.
Speaker:And that the consequences of identity politics and of concepts such as
Speaker:cultural appropriation is to bring about not social justice, but the
Speaker:empowerment of those who would act as gatekeepers to particular communities.
Speaker:Noel Pearson in 2015 said this, At the moment, for example, we're characterised
Speaker:as a race and it affects our whole psychology, not just the blackfellas,
Speaker:the whitefellas too, because the whitefellas think we're a separate race
Speaker:and treat us as a race and we see, and we ourselves have internalised that.
Speaker:I think the moment we move to recognition of Indigenous First Nations.
Speaker:We'll enter a phase where race will just be a concept from the 19th and
Speaker:20th century that we put behind us.
Speaker:And we, as blackfellas, won't have this negative idea of race about ourselves
Speaker:and hopefully the wider community will stop having low expectations of us.
Speaker:This is a concept I've noticed in Noel Pearson's writings and in Marcia Langton's
Speaker:writings where, where the rights that are being sought are for First Nations
Speaker:peoples rather than for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.
Speaker:Because they both know there's no such thing as race.
Speaker:There's racism, but not race.
Speaker:There's no such thing Aboriginal Torres Strait Islander race.
Speaker:So, they seem to want to talk about , Indigenous First Nations, First Peoples,
Speaker:and basically the people who were here first and those who are descended
Speaker:from them, as moniker rather than...
Speaker:Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders, and that somehow this
Speaker:will escape the whole racism problem.
Speaker:I don't see how it does that.
Speaker:More by Kenan Malik, on noble savage mistakes in Australia,
Speaker:because he visited Australia.
Speaker:Ah, no, he wrote about it afterwards.
Speaker:The debate about Indigenous peoples seems, at least to me an outsider,
Speaker:to take place on only two registers, on one hand silence, on the other a
Speaker:romanticisation of Indigenous life.
Speaker:It may seem odd to speak of silence in a nation where the issue of Indigenous
Speaker:rights is so prominent in public life, but silence can come in many forms.
Speaker:The affirmation of Indigenous ownership at public events has become little
Speaker:more than a ritual incantation.
Speaker:That allows white Australians to assuage guilt without taking the action necessary
Speaker:to challenge racist marginalisation.
Speaker:Equally troubling is the romanticisation.
Speaker:It has become the accepted truth that Indigenous peoples have a culture
Speaker:stretching back 65, 000 years.
Speaker:Humans have been on the continent for that long, but no culture
Speaker:extends over such a time span.
Speaker:Today's Indigenous Australians.
Speaker:No more have the same relationship to the spiritual tradition of Dreamtime
Speaker:stories, as did those first inhabitants, than modern Greeks relate to the Iliad
Speaker:in the way their ancient forebears did.
Speaker:The idea of an unbroken, unchanged culture has a flip side that
Speaker:has always animated races.
Speaker:It was once used to portray Indigenous Australians and other non white races as
Speaker:primitive and incapable of development.
Speaker:Likewise, with another common claim, the Indigenous people have a
Speaker:special attachment to the land and a unique form of ecological wisdom.
Speaker:This too draws on an old racist trope, a reworking of the noble savage myth.
Speaker:The fact that in contemporary debates, such ideas are deployed.
Speaker:And support rather than denial of Indigenous rights does
Speaker:not make them more palatable.
Speaker:Still on racist ideas.
Speaker:In Queensland we've got a Minister for Treaty, Leanne Enoch, and in
Speaker:this article , she stood by removing non First Nations Department
Speaker:staff from introductory meetings.
Speaker:So, when she has a meeting.
Speaker:Stakeholders and other groups, she will say, who's the Indigenous people here?
Speaker:You all stay so that we can sort out our family and cultural relationships.
Speaker:And while we do that, you white people leave the room.
Speaker:And she says that that is a normal cultural practice for Aboriginal people.
Speaker:And she labelled criticism of that practice as racist and defamatory.
Speaker:Well, it might be typical Indigenous practice.
Speaker:We're living in a community where openness and accountability in government
Speaker:is important and we need to know about conflicts of interest and we need to
Speaker:know people are treated equally and running that sort of operation prior to a
Speaker:meeting casts doubt on whether there are special arrangements for special people.
Speaker:This isn't open government when you do this.
Speaker:Now, she might feel that's insulting to Indigenous people if the white people
Speaker:can stay there, but in our culture in Australia today, needing open and
Speaker:accountable government with our fears of corruption and undue influence.
Speaker:With needing to know conflicts of interest, it's vitally important that
Speaker:such meetings are open and everybody understands where everybody sits.
Speaker:But, she declares the people complaining about that to be racist.
Speaker:This is where we get to with Orwellian doublespeak.
Speaker:Well, that's ideas about race.
Speaker:We now need to talk about class and identity politics.
Speaker:Because what we've had over...
Speaker:Recent decades, dear listener, is the demise of the union movement, and where
Speaker:people formerly identified by class, working class, middle class, and fought
Speaker:for rights for themselves and their fellow class members, for the working
Speaker:class to get a fair deal, for example.
Speaker:With the demise of the union movement and the change of work styles.
Speaker:We've lost class affiliation and perhaps because even when it was
Speaker:there, it just wasn't working well enough and people were falling behind.
Speaker:So people started resorting to their cultural, ethnic, religious, cultural
Speaker:groups for support and identity.
Speaker:And we've ended up in a form of identity politics.
Speaker:As opposed to class politics.
Speaker:This is what I see the problem, one of the problems with the voice,
Speaker:is I see things at a class level.
Speaker:I want to help disadvantaged people regardless of their cultural identity.
Speaker:Whereas the voice seeks representation for a cultural group without any account
Speaker:being taken into for class differences.
Speaker:So.
Speaker:Ken and Malik.
Speaker:Class and identity politics.
Speaker:The shift from class to culture is part of a much wider set of changes.
Speaker:The broad ideological divides that has characterised politics for much of the
Speaker:past 200 years have all but erased.
Speaker:The old distinction between left and right has become less meaningful.
Speaker:Old forms of collective life, usually based around class, have weakened.
Speaker:In politics, universalist visions have waned, while particularist
Speaker:perspectives gain strength.
Speaker:Meanwhile, the market has expanded into almost every nook and cranny of social
Speaker:life and institutions that traditionally helped socialise individuals, from
Speaker:trade unions to the church, have faded.
Speaker:We live today in a more fragmented, atomised society.
Speaker:Partly as a result of such social atomisation, people have begun to
Speaker:view themselves and their social affiliations in a different way.
Speaker:Social solidarity has become defined increasingly not in political
Speaker:terms, but rather in terms of ethnicity, culture, or faith.
Speaker:The question people ask themselves is not so much, in what kind of society
Speaker:do I want to live, as, who are we?
Speaker:The two questions are, of course, intimately related, and
Speaker:any sense of social identity must embed an answer to both.
Speaker:So the answer to the question, in what kind of society do I want to live,
Speaker:has become shaped less by the kinds of values or institutions people want to
Speaker:struggle to establish, than by the kind of people that they imagine they are.
Speaker:And the answer to who are we has been, become defined less by the
Speaker:kind of society they want to create than by the history and heritage
Speaker:to which supposedly they belong.
Speaker:The politics of ideology has, in other words, given way
Speaker:to the politics of identity.
Speaker:People have lost class ideology,
Speaker:, for some people,
Speaker:, you look at the world today and The 1 percent controls 90 percent of the
Speaker:wealth, for example, or the top 10 percent controls the top 90 percent
Speaker:of wealth, whatever the figure is.
Speaker:Let's say it's the top 10%.
Speaker:There are lots of people out there who would be fine with that, provided that
Speaker:in that top 10% the proportions of ethnicities and religious groupings and
Speaker:race matches the general population.
Speaker:That sort of disparity is fine, provided in that top 10%, 3.
Speaker:3 percent are indigenous, and 2.
Speaker:6 percent are Muslim, and 50 percent are women, and whatever
Speaker:the necessary proportion is are queer or, or homosexual, whatever.
Speaker:This sort of thought of representation of my group must be at least equal
Speaker:to its proportion of the community, without the consideration of, well,
Speaker:where's the community actually at?
Speaker:Anyway, I've digressed there.
Speaker:Kenna Malick again.
Speaker:Whites are seen as divided by class.
Speaker:Non whites as belonging to classless communities.
Speaker:It's a perspective that ignores social divisions within minority groups, while
Speaker:also racialising class distinctions.
Speaker:You hear a lot about the white working class, the white upper class.
Speaker:You don't hear about the black upper class, the black middle class.
Speaker:It exists.
Speaker:For example, he says in Britain, White working class boys, white
Speaker:working class boys, perform the worst of any group in British schools.
Speaker:Then, as now the picture was more complicated than the public debate
Speaker:suggested, black pupils were not alone in performing badly,
Speaker:nor did they all perform badly.
Speaker:Three ethnic groups lagged behind, African Caribbeans, Pakistanis and Bangladeshis.
Speaker:Three groups fared better than the average.
Speaker:Chinese, Indians and Africans.
Speaker:But the differences were not simply ethnic.
Speaker:African Caribbean, Pakistani and Bangladeshi migrants to Britain
Speaker:have come largely from working class and peasant backgrounds.
Speaker:Indian, Chinese and Africans tend to be more middle class.
Speaker:Racism undoubtedly played a part in the poor performance of children
Speaker:from certain minority groups.
Speaker:So did class differences.
Speaker:So fixated, however, were academics and policy makers by ethnic categories.
Speaker:But they largely ignored the latter, that is, the class differences.
Speaker:The 2000 Ofsted report, for instance, demonstrated that the impact of social
Speaker:class on school performance was more than twice as great as that of ethnicity,
Speaker:yet it disregarded its own data and focused almost exclusively on the
Speaker:problems posed by ethnic differences.
Speaker:If we're serious about tackling the problems facing both working class
Speaker:whites and minority groups, it's time we started thinking of the relationship
Speaker:between race and class in a different way.
Speaker:Right.
Speaker:Talking about culture and identity, and identity politics, I've got
Speaker:a description from Katherine R.
Speaker:Stimson.
Speaker:Identity politics is contemporary shorthand for a group's assertion that
Speaker:it is a meaningful group, that differs significantly from other groups, that its
Speaker:members share a history of injustice and grievance, and that its psychological and
Speaker:political mission is to explore, act out, act on, and act up its group identity.
Speaker:My fixation with class.
Speaker:over race.
Speaker:Many black activists would agree with me.
Speaker:We have to stop thinking about race and start thinking about class.
Speaker:Well known black activist leaders like Martin Luther King and
Speaker:Malcolm X would agree with me.
Speaker:So Martin Luther King.
Speaker:I mean his famous statement, judge somebody by the content of their character
Speaker:rather than the colour of their skin.
Speaker:Martin Luther King recognized too that equality meant more than
Speaker:simple civil and political rights.
Speaker:What does it profit a man?
Speaker:He asked to be able to eat at an integrated lunch counter if he
Speaker:doesn't earn enough money to buy a hamburger and a cup of coffee.
Speaker:In 19 60 70, he launched his Poor People's Campaign, telling a reporter
Speaker:that we are dealing with class issues.
Speaker:The Gulf between the haves and the have-nots, more importantly,
Speaker:or relevantly, or just as Relevantly King was about.
Speaker:Removing the barriers of segregation and of having black
Speaker:people achieve equal rights.
Speaker:It wasn't about black people achieving or gaining special rights.
Speaker:Malcolm X John Lewis, the chair of the SNCC, recalled a conversation in
Speaker:which Malcolm X talked about the need to shift our focus from race to class.
Speaker:Thanks for watching!
Speaker:He said this was the root of our problems, not just in
Speaker:America, but all over the world.
Speaker:I've spoken previously on the podcast of Malcolm X's transformation
Speaker:at the latter end of his life.
Speaker:Franz Fanon would agree with me.
Speaker:Franz Fanon was born in 1925 and was a hero of the Black Power
Speaker:and Black Panthers movement.
Speaker:But Fanon disagreed with those who promoted negritude.
Speaker:Fanon rejected what he saw as the trapping of black people within a
Speaker:fantasy carpus of culture and history.
Speaker:Fanon rejected the very idea of a single black identity.
Speaker:There is nothing he maintained to warrant the assumption that such
Speaker:a thing as Negro people exist.
Speaker:Nor do all blacks have a single set of experiences.
Speaker:The Negro is naughty, added any more than the white man.
Speaker:My black skin is not the wrapping of specific values.
Speaker:His solidarity is not with those who share his skin colour, but with
Speaker:all those who share his ideals.
Speaker:Amiri Baraka, the poet and critic, Amiri Baraka was a founder
Speaker:of the black arts movement.
Speaker:Baraka shed his nationalism for Marxism in the 1970s.
Speaker:He recognised the dangers of appropriating racial thinking,
Speaker:even for the cause of equal rights.
Speaker:He recognised too the importance of class in any struggle for equality
Speaker:and he came to realise that simply having black faces in position of
Speaker:power did little to combat racism.
Speaker:Or empower working class blacks.
Speaker:So there's some famous American black activists.
Speaker:Marsha Langton, she's obviously one of the most prominent people speaking on
Speaker:behalf of The Voice, her and Noel Pearson.
Speaker:She did a lot of work in, in describing how The Voice would operate.
Speaker:Back in 2012, she said things then, at the Melbourne Writers Festival, that
Speaker:seem to be at odds with her position now.
Speaker:Her thinking and her statements back then.
Speaker:just over 10 years ago, seem to contradict her position now.
Speaker:So this is Marsha Langton writing in 2012.
Speaker:It's a fairly lengthy bit, I'll be saying.
Speaker:I have the words I'm reading are the words she wrote, but I am leaving
Speaker:out some words in between, just to sort of paraphrase, if you like.
Speaker:So I'm not making up any words, but I'm leaving some out in some passages.
Speaker:Just to make it easier for you as a podcast listener to follow what
Speaker:she's saying and to highlight the bits that I want to highlight.
Speaker:So, so I'll start now with exploring what she wrote as part of the
Speaker:Melbourne Writers Festival in 2012.
Speaker:She writes, I want to explore in this chapter the problem
Speaker:of how to recognise Indigenous Australians in the Constitution.
Speaker:I am arguing that defining Aboriginal people as a race, As the Constitution
Speaker:does, sets up the conditions for Indigenous people to be treated, not
Speaker:just as different, but exceptional and inherently incapable of joining
Speaker:the Australian polity and society.
Speaker:Exceptionalist initiatives that have isolated the Aboriginal world from
Speaker:Australian economic and social life.
Speaker:In turn, many Indigenous Australians have developed a sense of entitlement and adopt
Speaker:the mantle of the exceptional Indigenee.
Speaker:The subject of special treatments on the grounds of race.
Speaker:This exceptional status involves a degree of self loathing,
Speaker:dehumanisation and complicity in racism.
Speaker:It is vital that treating Aborigines as a race must be replaced
Speaker:with the idea of First Peoples.
Speaker:Dear listener, I'm interrupting here with my own thoughts.
Speaker:This is what I was talking about with Noel Pearson earlier, and this is also what
Speaker:Marcia Langton is trying to say in that
Speaker:instead of using , Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders, which is racial, they
Speaker:want to use the idea of First Peoples, which is legal, if you like, in the sense
Speaker:of legal inheritors , of land rights.
Speaker:I'll go on with what she wrote.
Speaker:This is Marsha Langton.
Speaker:What Andrew Bolt cannot suspect is that many Aboriginal people, including me,
Speaker:are just as cynical and sceptical About all the claims made to Aboriginality,
Speaker:or to the use, or, to use the even more modern and meaningless phrase,
Speaker:Indigeneity, by people raised in relative comfort in the suburbs.
Speaker:They cannot be described as disadvantaged, unless you take seriously the racist.
Speaker:Proposition that one is automatically disadvantaged by having an Aboriginal
Speaker:ancestor and a trace of Aboriginal racial characteristics, yet they are eligible
Speaker:for special Aboriginal non government scholarships and special consideration
Speaker:for enrolment in universities.
Speaker:I have served on scholarship selection committees, and I contend that
Speaker:economic disadvantage must be one of the grounds for selection, and not
Speaker:simply identifying as Indigenous.
Speaker:It is nonsense.
Speaker:To hand out scholarships funded by philanthropic efforts to people who
Speaker:are not economically disadvantaged.
Speaker:Being descended from an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander person who
Speaker:lived before British annexation of our lands is not sufficient reason
Speaker:by itself to hand out money to people who make a claim to being Indigenous.
Speaker:This attitude of entitlement is poisoning Aboriginal society.
Speaker:Just as much it is as it is poisoning Australian attitudes to indigenous people.
Speaker:Now I'm gonna interrupt you with my own thoughts.
Speaker:I don't see in the debate that we've had on the voice, any nuance from
Speaker:yes voters about class distinctions within a Australian indigenous,
Speaker:indigenous community about, I mean, these are rights given to all
Speaker:indigenous people to lobby this.
Speaker:It's always framed as.
Speaker:the Indigenous community.
Speaker:It's never the poor Indigenous community, the disadvantaged Indigenous community,
Speaker:as distinct from the advantaged, well to do Indigenous community.
Speaker:It's a big part of my problem with this proposal is there's no
Speaker:class distinction in it at all.
Speaker:We're giving rights to Jonathan Thurston's kids, who I assume
Speaker:are financially very secure.
Speaker:Thank you very much.
Speaker:This is a big part of the problem.
Speaker:She's, in this essay, recognising how scholarships and whatnot shouldn't
Speaker:be granted to Indigenous people.
Speaker:Just, just being Indigenous isn't enough.
Speaker:You should be disadvantaged.
Speaker:I don't see the same distinctions happening in the voice debate.
Speaker:She goes on.
Speaker:The debate about what constitutes an authentic Aboriginal identity
Speaker:It's so fraught and toxic.
Speaker:Anything from growing up in the suburbs with a family that denied its Aboriginal
Speaker:roots, to feeling very spiritual,
Speaker:are being touted as legitimate grounds for claiming to be Aboriginal.
Speaker:Not just Andrew Bolt, but also hundreds of Aboriginal people who suffered
Speaker:because they did not want to hide their identity, are fed up with this
Speaker:creeping post modernist ideology of indigenism and indigenous exceptionalism.
Speaker:The key reason for our contempt for this lifestyle option is that most of its
Speaker:proponents, having never suffered racial discrimination, do not understand the
Speaker:need to be free of racial discrimination.
Speaker:So she's making the point there that
Speaker:just growing up, if you grew up in the suburbs with a family that denied
Speaker:its Aboriginal roots, she questions.
Speaker:Whether you can be an authentic Aboriginal person.
Speaker:She also talks about lifestyle choice.
Speaker:I know Tony Abbott was criticised heavily for saying that
Speaker:ascribing to an Indigenous culture was a lifestyle choice
Speaker:and people howled him down.
Speaker:Marsha Langton in this essay seems to me to be saying that for some people
Speaker:it can indeed be a lifestyle choice.
Speaker:She goes on to say that, and this is back in
Speaker:2016, our proposed bill to alter the constitution that we should put to
Speaker:the Australian people is as follows
Speaker:the Commonwealth shall not discriminate on the grounds of race.
Speaker:And that doesn't stop the Commonwealth from making laws, overcoming
Speaker:disadvantage, Ameliorating the effects of past discrimination.
Speaker:And she says, so that's like a fairly simple proposal,
Speaker:that, that they want in the Constitution something to allow the government,
Speaker:to make it clear the government has the power, to make laws that do
Speaker:discriminate, if it's for overcoming disadvantage, or ameliorating the
Speaker:effects of past discrimination.
Speaker:She goes on to talk about that to say that there was one problem that Noel Pearson
Speaker:raised, the problem of how to gauge the progress in removing disadvantage
Speaker:and thereby remove from legislation the special measures designed to address
Speaker:them once the goals were achieved.
Speaker:This is an absolutely necessary part of the puzzle.
Speaker:We must address this problem in order to remove the scourge of
Speaker:racism from the constitutional wheels of our social machine.
Speaker:So she's saying, if we're going to make provision...
Speaker:For Indigenous people to fix the gap, we should put in there the
Speaker:mechanism by which that special benefit closes once the gap closes.
Speaker:She says it's part of human rights practice to allow for special measures
Speaker:that discriminate in favour of a disadvantaged group, but these measures
Speaker:must be temporary or the fabric of human rights law and its principle is breached.
Speaker:There is a growing Aboriginal middle class.
Speaker:The climb out of poverty and disadvantage has paid off for their children as well.
Speaker:And, for these children, no special measures are required.
Speaker:They should continue to identify as Aboriginal.
Speaker:They should learn and practice their culture.
Speaker:But there are no human rights grounds for them to receive any
Speaker:special assistance, except in some circumstances such as disability.
Speaker:Don't see any of that in the current debate.
Speaker:She says it requires imagining the Australian society in which we see
Speaker:each other as individuals, each unique with a multitude of characteristics.
Speaker:Being Aboriginal in that circumstances would not be extraordinary or
Speaker:contentious or reason for hatefulness.
Speaker:She then goes on to quote Morgan Freeman, the American actor, and I've previously
Speaker:played the clip with Morgan Freeman.
Speaker:I'll just quote her first of all.
Speaker:Morgan Freeman, the American actor, explained in an interview why he hates
Speaker:the idea of Black History Week, even though he is on one side of his family,
Speaker:the descendant of an African slave.
Speaker:There is no White History Week.
Speaker:Black history is American history, he said.
Speaker:She goes on, When you think about it, our historians and intellectuals
Speaker:should have reached this realisation without the trauma of the culture wars.
Speaker:I hope we can put this idiocy behind us, and define human beings
Speaker:in ways that does not involve outdated and unscientific concepts.
Speaker:and the prejudices that have grown up around them.
Speaker:Can't believe you would write such an essay and then 10 years later be calling
Speaker:for a voice which makes no reference to class and disadvantage and gives broad
Speaker:lobbying rights to Indigenous people,
Speaker:many of whom have no special, are not suffering any particular disadvantage.
Speaker:But there you go.
Speaker:Here's the clip from Morgan Freeman Black History Month.
Speaker:You find ridiculous.
Speaker:What?
Speaker:You're gonna relegate my history to a month.
Speaker:Oh, come on.
Speaker:What do you do with yours?
Speaker:What?
Speaker:Which month is White History Month?
Speaker:? Well, come on, tell me.
Speaker:Well, the, I'm Jewish.
Speaker:Okay.
Speaker:Which month is Jewish History Month?
Speaker:There isn't one.
Speaker:Oh oh, why not?
Speaker:Yeah.
Speaker:Well, you want one?
Speaker:No, no, no.
Speaker:I don't either.
Speaker:I don't want a Black History Month.
Speaker:Black history is American history.
Speaker:How are we going to get rid of racism?
Speaker:Stop talking about it.
Speaker:I'm going to stop calling you a white man.
Speaker:Yeah.
Speaker:And I'm going to ask you to stop calling me a black man.
Speaker:I know you as Mike Wallace, you know me as Morgan Freeman.
Speaker:I just want to talk about this I just want to circle back to the argument
Speaker:that Indigenous people are not heard.
Speaker:We are not heard, is the claim.
Speaker:We need to be heard, the voice will fix that, but we are not heard.
Speaker:When measuring the gap, everyone compares poverty, incarceration, education rates
Speaker:of Indigenous people, bearing in mind their percentage of the population.
Speaker:Indigenous people are either over represented or under represented.
Speaker:Typically overrepresented in incarceration rates, underrepresented when it comes to
Speaker:high sort of income levels, for example.
Speaker:It's a comparison between, you know, Indigenous people are, for example, 3.
Speaker:3 percent of the population but make up over 10 percent
Speaker:of the incarcerated people.
Speaker:That sort of statistic is trotted out, and with good reason.
Speaker:But that statistical method is thrown out the window when it
Speaker:comes to the voice and Indigenous representation in Federal Parliament.
Speaker:The 2022 11 Aboriginal parliamentarians, representing 4.
Speaker:8 percent of all parliamentarians, which is higher than the Indigenous
Speaker:Australian population of 3.
Speaker:3%.
Speaker:So, the first point of call in a democracy, as to
Speaker:whether you're being heard...
Speaker:is, are there people in Parliament like you who are able to
Speaker:inform the Parliament and their colleagues about your experience?
Speaker:Well, 4.
Speaker:8 percent of them are.
Speaker:That's a, that's a good rate of representation.
Speaker:Sometimes when you listen to these debates, if you came from overseas or
Speaker:from outer space and were plopped in the middle of this debate, you would
Speaker:swear that Indigenous people didn't A vote is sometimes how it's described.
Speaker:So, what do we think those eleven Aboriginal parliamentarians are
Speaker:doing when they're in parliament?
Speaker:What do you think they're doing there?
Speaker:Of course they're going to be passing on thoughts of their constituents,
Speaker:who will include Indigenous people.
Speaker:I have, in the past, looked for an example of an idea, an instance, a thing.
Speaker:Where advocates for the yes vote could say, look, if only the
Speaker:voice had been in place, then this would have been different.
Speaker:We would have had a better outcome, given that the role of the voice is to
Speaker:notify Parliament of Indigenous opinion.
Speaker:It's really looking for things where the Parliament did not know
Speaker:what Indigenous people wanted when it came to a certain issue.
Speaker:And if only the voice had been there to tell the Parliament, money could
Speaker:have been saved, better outcomes could have been achieved, pain
Speaker:avoided, happiness perhaps achieved.
Speaker:And I mentioned before that during the podcast somebody mentioned
Speaker:the Income Management, which was introduced in response to the findings
Speaker:of an inquiry into sexual violence against Indigenous children in 2007.
Speaker:But when I investigated that and looked into it, reports that were retrospective
Speaker:were indicating that the Indigenous community was split as to whether they
Speaker:approved or disapproved of the program.
Speaker:And that's touted as an example where the voice would have said, Oh, well, we
Speaker:definitely shouldn't do that program.
Speaker:But depending on the community, that may not be what the community is.
Speaker:opinion was, or even still is.
Speaker:So, a footnote to that report.
Speaker:By the way, dear listener, patrons get full show notes of all the articles and
Speaker:references that I've describing here.
Speaker:It's probably going to be a, I don't know, it could be a, it could be about a
Speaker:70 page document at the rate we're going.
Speaker:We'll see.
Speaker:Anyway, from this report, Evaluations of Income Management, and Footnote 13.
Speaker:The report presents the perspective of aboriginal men and women in the
Speaker:N T E R measures from six case study communities in central Australia,
Speaker:tmu, Ali, and Hermannsburg.
Speaker:It's based on detailed participatory evaluation survey of 141 Aboriginal
Speaker:residents in these communities.
Speaker:The survey questioned participants awareness of the NTER measures, feelings
Speaker:on the measures and the effect of the measures on them and their community.
Speaker:The survey included a self assessment scale.
Speaker:The community surveys were augmented by 51 semi structured interviews
Speaker:with other community based employees or agencies, government agencies
Speaker:and GBMs in survey communities.
Speaker:Additional data was provided by the NTER Operations Centre, Department
Speaker:of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations and Centrelink.
Speaker:The research conducted clearly, the research conducted demonstrates clearly
Speaker:the diversity of opinion around the NTER measures across communities.
Speaker:As well as amongst community members resident in a community.
Speaker:Income management responses across survey participants were almost evenly
Speaker:divided between people in favour, 51%, and opposed, 46%, to income management.
Speaker:Gender and age were not significant factors influencing people's level of
Speaker:support, however income type influenced people's support for income management.
Speaker:Blah, blah, blah.
Speaker:After one of my episodes, I was emailed by a listener called Andrew, and he accused
Speaker:me of being ignorant and he referred to my call out for one of these examples of
Speaker:something that would have been different had the voice been in place, and he
Speaker:said, That there was a 1 million wasted in Central Australia on a market garden.
Speaker:So I emailed him back and said, Well, what's the story about the market garden?
Speaker:Give me a link.
Speaker:And he responded and he said that There was a Zoom meeting with a university.
Speaker:Let's see which one it was.
Speaker:Anyway, it was a university, it was a panel discussion, there was an
Speaker:artist from Central Australia told the story, Andrew thinks it was
Speaker:Sally Scales, and indeed it was.
Speaker:It was held at Australian National University, ANU, Mark Kinney hosted
Speaker:it various people on the panel, and so I found the I found it on
Speaker:YouTube, I think he might have sent me the clip, from YouTube.
Speaker:And I'm going to play you now what Sally Scales said at the 1 minute and 10 1 hour,
Speaker:10 minute mark of that, of that clip.
Speaker:Talking about realistic changes in a community, like I was 19
Speaker:when our, our communities asked for food security changes in
Speaker:our regional remote communities.
Speaker:Now, the APY lands is 18 hours from Adelaide.
Speaker:It's nine hours from Alice Springs.
Speaker:Our food comes from Adelaide.
Speaker:You know, 14 years ago, an iceberg lettuce was co costing $14.
Speaker:A box of nappies was $48, and I'm talking black and gold and that I'm talking 20.
Speaker:And we asked to subsidize a cost of freight and a minister
Speaker:chose to do a market garden.
Speaker:In the remote communities.
Speaker:Now, I'm from a desert, arid community.
Speaker:We advised this minister this is not gonna work.
Speaker:Her Aboriginal Affairs Commissioner said this will not work.
Speaker:She chose to do it anyway.
Speaker:She wasted a million dollars that we were asking for 500, 000 over five years.
Speaker:So in it she says,
Speaker:I'm from a desert community and we advise this minister, it's not going to work.
Speaker:Her Aboriginal Affairs Commissioner said this will not work, blah, blah, blah.
Speaker:So what Sally Scales is saying is that the minister was told
Speaker:it's not going to work and the Aboriginal Affairs Commissioner knew.
Speaker:Was told this will not work.
Speaker:That's the whole point of what we're talking about here is will
Speaker:the government Know something that they didn't know before.
Speaker:So this is an example actually of where Indigenous people were heard.
Speaker:She admits they were heard.
Speaker:It's just that the minister sister.
Speaker:It's just that the minister Decided to do something different
Speaker:to what their advice was.
Speaker:Now, that's what's going to happen with the voice as well So this was hardly
Speaker:an argument in favour of the voice, it was an example of how actually
Speaker:Indigenous people have access to the minister to advise the minister of
Speaker:their opinion, and then guess what?
Speaker:The minister can sometimes ignore them.
Speaker:That's what's going to happen with the voice.
Speaker:This was not an argument in favour of showing how the voice
Speaker:would create a different result.
Speaker:I'm still waiting on one.
Speaker:Now, the same thing happened with Noel Pearson.
Speaker:At the press gallery lunch not so long ago.
Speaker:And in that
Speaker:in that, he gave the example of rheumatic heart disease as an example of an
Speaker:issue that would have been different, would have been treated differently by
Speaker:government had the voice been in place.
Speaker:And so at about the 16.
Speaker:In that 55 second mark of that clip, he says, I've learned that
Speaker:listening makes it possible.
Speaker:Rheumatic heart disease is a scourge.
Speaker:Rheumatic heart disease is a scourge.
Speaker:A disease largely eradicated in the rest of the world, but allowed to
Speaker:fester in the paradise of Cape York and the remote communities of Australia.
Speaker:At an event yesterday in Brisbane, doctors confirmed this terrible
Speaker:disease kills two Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people per week.
Speaker:Young children, teenagers and young adults in their 20s and 30s.
Speaker:They drop dead swimming down the creek or on the football field,
Speaker:sleeping in their beds at night.
Speaker:Yet, when I searched Hansard, I found the local federal member of parliament for
Speaker:Cape York and Torres Strait, ensconced in his seat for 26 years, never found time
Speaker:to mention rheumatic heart disease in our nation's chamber of democracy even once.
Speaker:He did for the first time when I mentioned this in this campaign.
Speaker:This is a problem only a voice can overcome, to ensure people who represent
Speaker:us, who make laws about us, who determine so much about the reality of our lives,
Speaker:listen to our advice, blah, blah, blah.
Speaker:I thought, well, that's potentially the example I'm looking for, that this
Speaker:disease of rheumatic heart disease, local member didn't know about it, and, or if
Speaker:he did, never mentioned it in Hansard.
Speaker:in Parliament.
Speaker:Well, you do a quick Google search of that disease and Indigenous People
Speaker:Australia, and of course you find any number of efforts to treat this
Speaker:issue by all sorts of organisations.
Speaker:And it's not an issue that the government is unaware of and has done nothing about.
Speaker:Quite the opposite.
Speaker:So, the government is aware of that disease in Indigenous communities
Speaker:and there are various programs.
Speaker:With various success rates or failure rates, but it's not an
Speaker:example where having a voice is going to make a difference in the
Speaker:sense of telling the government stuff that they didn't already know.
Speaker:And a quick Google search reveals the extent of consultation
Speaker:knowledge and programs that are already in place on that one.
Speaker:Just for your reference.
Speaker:Why is there such a prevalence of this disease in Indigenous communities?
Speaker:And the answer is that it's directly related to poverty, overcrowded living
Speaker:conditions, where people get scratches and infections, multiple strep infections.
Speaker:leads to this form of heart disease.
Speaker:So it's, it's really a consequence of poverty and living
Speaker:conditions is, is the issue.
Speaker:And that's why you don't see it in mainstream Australian society, but
Speaker:it is a problem in overcrowded, poor, Unhygienic Indigenous communities.
Speaker:It's a, it's actually a culture problem again.
Speaker:Just going back actually to the story about the Market Garden.
Speaker:And I mentioned before that it was an example where the government
Speaker:actually knew the opinion of Indigenous people, so the voice wasn't going
Speaker:to make any difference to that.
Speaker:But I found a submission by Money Mob Talkabout to the House of Representatives
Speaker:Senate Standing Committee on Indigenous Affairs in Canberra, who were holding
Speaker:an inquiry into food pricing and food security in remote Indigenous communities.
Speaker:Money Mob provides financial counselling, financial literacy,
Speaker:education and a range of other financial service supports to the Aboriginal
Speaker:population in remote communities.
Speaker:There are experts in this field and you might remember that in
Speaker:that clip Sally Scales talked about the need for a freight subsidy.
Speaker:Instead they got a market garden.
Speaker:What good was that?
Speaker:And we know what we need, it's a freight subsidy.
Speaker:Well, actually, according to Money Mob, it's way more complicated than that.
Speaker:And in this submission, which was to an inquiry on food pricing and food security
Speaker:in remote Indigenous communities, in particular, the remote South Australian
Speaker:community that she was talking about they say this, while a lot of attention
Speaker:is given to the freight costs.
Speaker:There are many significant factors that contribute to the
Speaker:higher end price to the consumer.
Speaker:From our experience, some of the unique operating expenses of a business or
Speaker:organisation in a remote environment are higher wages and salaries, providing
Speaker:and maintaining housing for staff, training, retention and turnover of
Speaker:staff, and governance for boards.
Speaker:These are factors.
Speaker:Which are echoed by remote stores, and they make the point that if
Speaker:you want outsiders to come and work in these remote communities,
Speaker:you have to pay a very high wage.
Speaker:That offer may arrive, find they will get trained up, understand the lifestyle is
Speaker:not for them and disappear quickly, so you end up retraining people very quickly.
Speaker:In terms of local people, very difficult to employ and recruit
Speaker:and train local staff as well.
Speaker:Many Indigenous employees struggle to retain employment.
Speaker:They face a range of pressures, including providing high levels of financial
Speaker:support to extended family, which can act as a disincentive to work.
Speaker:They suffer violence and abuse from the broader community.
Speaker:There's also lack of childcare, and balancing cultural and work obligations.
Speaker:And, if they don't speak English, that adds to the problem.
Speaker:So, very difficult staffing, huge levels of damage to premises, and
Speaker:also theft by customers and staff.
Speaker:This extract from the Impampa Community Store financial statements.
Speaker:It illustrates the impact of theft.
Speaker:As the community is relatively small and the corporation's turnover also
Speaker:relatively low, Outback Stores has moved the store over to the light model
Speaker:where Outback Stores is assisted by community members to run the store and
Speaker:to help achieve the mission, vision and nutritional aims as detailed above.
Speaker:When this was first implemented, family and other community members
Speaker:would go into the store and hassle and humbug the working community members.
Speaker:Which resulted in the loss of stock in theft.
Speaker:They go on to talk about the actual percentages and amounts.
Speaker:They make the point in this report that it's difficult to explain to
Speaker:people that it's not just freight and that it's all these other issues.
Speaker:They also talk about governance arrangements, that it's often local
Speaker:community leaders who are in governance of these projects, but that doesn't help.
Speaker:Necessarily, and can cause a problem when people want to complain,
Speaker:but it would be divisive in their community if they were to.
Speaker:They also point out that the their buying power is not like a Coles or a Woolworths.
Speaker:So they purchase through Metcash, which means they don't have the buying
Speaker:power of a Coles or a Woolworths.
Speaker:So the prices are going to necessarily be higher as well.
Speaker:And they talk about poverty and cultural factors influencing consumption.
Speaker:And quoting from the report, Indigenous community, Indigenous consumers living
Speaker:in remote communities do not have the same shopping behaviours as consumers in
Speaker:regional, urban and metropolitan areas.
Speaker:Many factors, including persistent poverty, overcrowded, freely
Speaker:accessed housing and a concomitant.
Speaker:Inability to retain food in the house and the lack of essential white goods
Speaker:such as fridges Results in many remote indigenous consumers living day to day.
Speaker:In food purchasing terms for many people This means purchasing food from the
Speaker:store daily sometimes at each mealtime.
Speaker:Dear listener, if you've got money and you're in this community You can't go to
Speaker:the shop and buy two or three days worth of food and stick it in a cupboard Because
Speaker:people are walking in and out of your house all the time and just taking stuff.
Speaker:These are cultural issues affecting food security for people in these communities.
Speaker:And finally in this report, it talks about the community gardens
Speaker:and acknowledges that these haven't worked.
Speaker:And I'm just quoting from the report here.
Speaker:Remote Indigenous residents we spoke to confirmed these observations.
Speaker:One noted, there was previously a community garden, however it wasn't used
Speaker:and eventually died or was destroyed.
Speaker:Another interviewee from a Northern Territory community stated, the
Speaker:community garden is maintained through the Community Development
Speaker:Program, which is work for the Dole.
Speaker:It is abundant, however, only the local police officer uses
Speaker:it to make his smoothies.
Speaker:A third person stated, People are too lazy to look after a community
Speaker:garden, harvest the produce and then take it home and cook a healthy meal.
Speaker:We believe what is labelled lazy is more likely attributable to the dispiriting
Speaker:effects of current, intergenerational and community trauma which can lock
Speaker:individuals and communities into a cycle that saps their hope, health and energy.
Speaker:This in turn can affect one's ability to make practical life decisions, healthy
Speaker:choices and significantly change.
Speaker:their circumstances.
Speaker:So, the picture painted by Sally Scales was that the land is too arid,
Speaker:so a community garden's hopeless.
Speaker:But the picture painted by this report is that in some circumstances
Speaker:you can do it, and it has been done, but people don't even eat their
Speaker:vegetables or salad items, even if they are there, to cook a healthy meal.
Speaker:It's a far more complicated and nuanced problem.
Speaker:Food security.
Speaker:than what was painted by Sally Scales.
Speaker:And guess what?
Speaker:It involves a whole bunch of cultural issues.
Speaker:Hard cultural problems.
Speaker:Things where you need to say, we need to change culture, if
Speaker:we are to improve food security.
Speaker:But that's the last thing culture warriors will admit.
Speaker:I'm going to finish off.
Speaker:I've got various other notes, but...
Speaker:In the scheme of things in Australia, the amount of time
Speaker:and energy that has been spent on this issue is like bike shedding.
Speaker:So bike shedding is this phenomena.
Speaker:It's like where they were going to construct some nuclear power
Speaker:plant and there's a committee that's reviewing the decision.
Speaker:And, you know, a hundred and...
Speaker:$20 billion is allocated to the reactor and people go, yeah.
Speaker:Okay.
Speaker:And another $5 billion to environmental measures in dealing with stuff.
Speaker:Yeah.
Speaker:Okay.
Speaker:And then, you know, one of the final item agendas is, you know, the staff will be
Speaker:working there an allocation of a $1,500 for a bike shed so that people can ride
Speaker:to work and store their bikes in a shed.
Speaker:And rather than driving to work.
Speaker:The story is that the committee then spends an hour and a half arguing over the
Speaker:type of bike shed, whether it should be a colour blind roof or how big or small it
Speaker:should be, whether it should be attached.
Speaker:All sorts of details relating to the bike shed are examined in minute detail,
Speaker:whereas these other big items had just sailed through sort of without discussion.
Speaker:And, and what it demonstrates is that people will talk about topics that they
Speaker:have some knowledge of and people could all talk about a bike shed because it was
Speaker:something within their experience, whereas the nuclear reactor, they just, you know,
Speaker:it was 50 billion or a hundred billion.
Speaker:They just had no idea.
Speaker:So, you know, the debate on the voice There's a little bit of a bike shedding
Speaker:moment in that everyone can easily have an opinion and talk about it, when there's
Speaker:a whole range of other issues confronting our society, like this government
Speaker:is heading us to war with China, is hitching us onto a wagon with the United
Speaker:States and the UK over an AUKUS deal.
Speaker:That is diabolically dangerous for us, and yet it hasn't got a
Speaker:scratch of a fraction of the, of the discussion that The Voice has got.
Speaker:And there are other issues in terms of, you know, economics
Speaker:and inequality in this community.
Speaker:People still think trickle down actually works, but you know what?
Speaker:Foreign affairs geopolitical stuff, economics.
Speaker:currency, interest rates too hard.
Speaker:So nobody talks about them.
Speaker:But they're the important things and we're fluffing around on, on what should
Speaker:really be a minor administrative matter in the Department of Aboriginal Affairs.
Speaker:This is just typical of the left.
Speaker:What's left of it?
Speaker:I mean, Labor's not a left wing party anymore, but the left as a movement
Speaker:can talk about Voluntary Assisted Dying, Abortion Rights, Marriage
Speaker:Equality, simple things like that.
Speaker:We've got some of that up in recent times, but only because it coincides
Speaker:with a libertarian right wing view of freedom of the individual.
Speaker:There's no hard intellectual left arguments explaining, promoting,
Speaker:complicated, hard ideas that people need to get their head around.
Speaker:We just muck around with this voice rubbish.
Speaker:And I've done the same for nearly two hours here.
Speaker:There we go.
Speaker:If you're a patron, you'll get a PDF that you can access , 40 pages of
Speaker:notes from the articles I've quoted.
Speaker:That's all I've got to say on Indigenous matters for quite a while.
Speaker:Talk to you next time.
Speaker:Bye for now.
Speaker:Dear listener, not too long ago you looked at your podcast app and saw that
Speaker:a new episode of the Iron Fist and Velvet Glove podcast was available to download.
Speaker:Did you silently think to yourself, wait, a new podcast?
Speaker:I like listening to those guys.
Speaker:If so, then you qualify as a potential donor to the podcast.
Speaker:Your donation will help cover some expenses.
Speaker:But more importantly, your donation tells the boys that they are on the
Speaker:right track and to keep up the good work.
Speaker:A dollar a show is all they ask.
Speaker:Go to their website at ironfistvelvetglove.
Speaker:com.
Speaker:au and click on the donations link.
