The Albanese Government has published a draft question to be put to the people of Australia with regards to The Voice to parliament, as recommended by a very long process, which included the Uluru Statement From The Heart in 2017. Australia has never ever come to terms with its colonial past but instead, absorbed the story of dispossession and theft, by whitewashing the story with a settler narrative; which wasn't helped by abject racism which was originally enshrined in the Constitution.
You would expect that as part of any kind of truth telling and equity process, that at the very least there would be some kind of dialogue between the Crown and First Peoples but it appears as though Australia still very much retains a right-wing authoritarian racist element, which would cheer the hearts of white supremacists and the same kinds of people who would form lynch mobs.
It does not help that the current Leader of the Opposition, Peter Dutton, refused to be in the parliament when the Apology to the Stolen Generations was made; nor does it help that people like former Prime Ministers, John Howard and Tony Abbott have been given very large platforms by Sky News Australia (which itself is part of an organisation which actively wants to remove provisions to the Racial Discrimination Act because its employees have fallen foul of it) and been allowed to pour petrol onto the fire which fuels outright racism.
I would like to be kind when it comes to judging people's motives but the biggest objections to any kind of reconciliation, recognition, and remedy process which includes an indigenous voice to parliament, is lead by Australians who either don’t understand their own history, who were never taught it and have not wanted to know it; so never sought to educate themselves. Given the history of this country, we have to conclude that there are a lot of nasty and openly racist people who lack even basic empathy.
On top of this, the couching of the argument as an unreasonable demand by people like Littleproud on the floor of the parliament itself, is disingenuous political fear mongering in plain sight. The suggestion that there's somehow a lack of detail despite there being a 277 precis about The Voice, is an open lie. The draft question posed, is actually rather plain, simple, and easily understood.
I was asked the following questions on Twitter; which were more than likely asked in bad faith, given that this person then expressed notions that first people would eventually die out through natural processes (which sounds awfully like forms of eugenics from the late 1890s) but even questions asked in bad faith can still be answered in sensible terms:
Do ALL Australian people currently have EXACTLY the same rights, the same representation (such as it is), at the moment? Are all equal?
Isn't it racist to say all have an equal right, but some should have an extra right, because of race?
- Handle Withheld, 31st Jul 2022
The short answer in a word is, "No". All Australian people do not currently have exactly the same rights. I realise that this might be a subtle thing to grasp but we as a nation have repeatedly confirmed that First Peoples do not have the right to equity.
One of the principles at common law is that someone who causes damage of property, both real and non-real, should make good and fix or repair the damage. Notions of equality attempt to ensure that people have access to the same rights and opportunities; notions of equity should attempt to do what is right, and just, and proper.
Any reading of the first nine clauses of the Constitution, will tell you that First People are conspicuous by their absence. They were never consulted about the process of federation and right up until the various land rights claims of the 1970s, 80s and Mabo v Queensland No.2 (1992) there wasn't even the hint that those claims would be honoured.
However to suggest that land rights are the be all and end all, is too miss the mark by miles. The opening nine clauses of the Constitution tell a far more egregious story. What they demonstrate is open discrimination by omission. Futhermore, the intent of things like the race provision and the original inclusion of Section 127 goes on to demonstrate active exclusion to process.
Are all equal?
Again, No. Having capital stolen from you, has multiplier effects. From the inception of the nation, not only did stealing land exclude First People from the lands but also the rewards which may have followd by means of rents and royalties. If you multiply the active exclusion from the economic rewards of something for more than 200 years in some cases, then that further adds to the problem of economic inequality.
Some should have an extra right, because of race?
The fact that someone even thinks like this suggests that they are unaware of the privilege that they possess or worse, actually do understand the privilege that they possess and want to preserve it, including if this comes at someone else's expense. When you are in a place of privilege, any move towards equity and and equality begins to look like oppression. The ugly irony is that people asking this question are actively arguing for a denial of equity on the basis of race. This might not even be a case of irony, it might just be straight up knavery.
I also find the hiding behind "equality" as an excuse for not wanting The Voice, as deeply dishonest. If I was Grand Poohbah and Lord High Everything Else, then I would go further than just The Voice to parliament and complete the process of federation; by formally recognising the original sovereignty of first peoples, which by the way was never ceded, and admitting first people as a 'virtual state' which would entitle first people to at least six Senators. Proper equality should logically come with representation and I think that this is best expressed on the floors of parliaments. We are not even close to having that kind of dialogue for the simple reason that nasty and openly racist people who lack empathy will do everything that they can do stop it. As usual money speaks for money, power speaks for power, and those who control one or both, generally do not want to give it up; so they will couch argument in the language of liberty. Scratch the surface though and ask just a few questions and you find that liberty, empathy, liberty, fraternity, extend only as far as their fists will allow and they want to continue punching downwards.
The underlying problem is that Australia has never ever come to terms with its original sin. Australia likes to whitewash its history by claiming that this continent was settled by a peaceful settler class in addition to its penal colony origins. The untold truth is that this came at the expense of people who were at times deliberately exterminated and destroyed through acts of genocide. Their descendants were then denied and excluded from any kind of equity, much less ever getting say on the legislation which would directly affect them.
The Voice, which in my opinion is still a pathetic half-way attempt at token action, is still only a first but necessary step in a process not yet imagined; which should lead to reconciliation, treaty, representation, and very far off in the distance, the possibility of dialogue and forgiveness.
No comments:
Post a Comment