By now the great Australian voting public will have all received their information pamphlet, with both the text of the proposed Chapter IX and Section 129 to be added to the Constitution, and the two sets of arguments for the "Yes Case" and the "No Case". If agreed to in the affirmative by a majority of voters and in a majority of states, then the amendment will be made. In the event that there is a majority of voters but not a majority of states (ie 3:3), then the amendment will not be made. In the event that there is a majority of states (ie 4:2) but not a majority of voters, then the amendment will not be made.
The fight which is currently being conducted by the overtly right-wing press is to kill the amendment. My prediction is that the referendum will fail; which means that any hope of reconciliation will be set back at least 20 years. This will also mean that the racists will have won.
Admittedly at this point, I have already laid my cards on the table when I say that the words of Chapter IX and Section 129 I think are a poor answer to the problem which lies at the heart of the Constitution, which itself was written by overtly racist people and by the Six States which all acquired their lands by genocide and dispossession but given that this is the best that we're going to get, then this is what we'll have to accept. The choice before the people is slightly better than a token or nothing.
Be that as it may be, the information pamphlet contains the text of the proposed Chapter IX and Section 129; as well as a "Yes Case" in favour and a "No Case" against it. I shall run though each of these and evaluate whether or not I think that the claims therein are true or not. At the end of this, I shall give both sides a score to see what level of truthiness they employed.
The Yes Case.
The "Yes Case" in the booklet starts out by stating what it calls 8 "Key Facts", before providing 8 more reasons. These are as follows:
Fact 1. Idea comes directly Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.
Surprisingly, the then Abbott Government in 2015 set in motion a series of dialogues, forums and discussions with more than 1200 people groups. These dialogues included elders, chiefs as well as heads of family groups; which means that as far as deliberation and discussion goes, this was a very comprehensive process.
These Regional Dialogues culminated in the First Nations Constitutional Convention at Uluru in 2017, and this the final dialogue which argued out and decided upon the wording of the Uluru Statement From The Heart. The Turnbull Government was to have put a similar referendum to the people at the 2019 election, except for the fact that Mr Turnbull was removed as Prime Minister and the Morrison Government which followed, point blank refused to do anything about it. Thus, even though there was a wide ranging nation-wide deliberative consultation process with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, no action was taken on the Uluru Statement From The Heart until there was a change of government.
As far as the claim that the Uluru Statement From The Heart and the call for The Voice was backed by over 80% of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, this was was true at the time and from every single poll which I have found from 2022 onwards when this was proposed as a constitutional amendment, the lowest approval rating was 84%. Polling always has confirmed that support from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples has always been well in excess of a supermajority.
This is accurate.
1/1
Fact 2. Recognises First Peoples In Our Constitution
This is merely a restatement of the proposed text.
"Chapter IX - Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples.
s.129 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice
In recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia:"
I personally find this as inadequate as this is a Chapter and Section which is tacked onto the end of the Constitution, which very much looks like an afterthought; which it is. I do not think that Section 129 adequately addresses the critical flaw at the centre of of the Constitution but if this is the best that we can hope for, then pragmatism says that this will have to do.
This claim that the proposed Section 129 recognises First Peoples in the Constitution, is true in as much as it explicitly ties the creation of the Voice as a consequence of the recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia.
This is accurate.
2/2
Fact 3. A Committee of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander People.
The text of the proposed Section 129 states that:
"(i) There shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice;"
Section 129 does not state what that "body" looks like; nor does it explicitly state the composition of that body, leaving that for the Parliament to decide by legislation.
The current Albanese Government has released a set of guidelines which state that the The Voice will be made up of and chosen by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people but these guidelines are merely that.
The proposed text of Section 129, does not explicitly state that The Voice is a "A Committee of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander People" but given the deliberative process and what it is intended to do, I can not imagine that this is a statement which will be proven wrong, however we just don't know.
This is ultimately unknowable but a claim which sounds like it should be true.
2.5/3
Fact 4. Gives People A Say On Issues Affecting Them.
Again, this is a restatement of actual text of the proposed Section 129:
"(ii) the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice may make representations to the Parliament and Executive Government of the Commonwealth on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples;"
Assuming that the The Voice is made up of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, then if it may make representations to the Parliament and Executive Government then of course it will give Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people a say on government and parliamentary decisions about issues relating to them.
This is a basic comprehension question.
3.5/4
Fact 5. Listening Will Mean Better Results and Better Value For Money
As evidenced by the Northern Territory Intervention, or the imposition of policies such as missions and schools which have resulted in things in the past like the Stolen Generations, I do not honestly see how not asking people and consulting with people directly affected by legislation has helped in the past.
This is a vague and general kind of claim but it would appear that when governments actually listen to the needs, opinions, and wished of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, that this results in better and more targeted programs in areas such as housing, health, education, et cetera.
This claim appears to be supported by a large body of academic research; which is hardly surprising since this is generally the case when people are consulted about things which concern them. Better results and outcomes sounds like better value for money; which is secondary.
This is a general claim but still correct.
4.5/5
Fact 6. Representatives From All States and Territories, the Torres Strait Islands and Remote Communities.
This is not actually stated within the words of the text of the proposed Section 129. At best this merely reflects the current Albanese government’s published design principles.
This is ultimately unknowable.
4.5/6
Fact 7. Will include young people and a balance of men and women.
Again, this is not actually stated within the words of the text of the proposed Section 129. At best this merely reflects the current Albanese government’s published design principles.
This is ultimately unknowable.
4.5/7
Fact 8. Parliament and Government still responsible for laws, programs and funding.
I can see nothing in this amendment which modifies or changes any part of the rest of the Constitution. Laws are still subject to the passage of legislation of the parliament, various programs are are still subject to the running of executive government by the several government ministers, funding is still subject to the passage of money bills of the parliament.
The Voice has no constitutional power to veto parliamentary and government decisions, and the text of Section 129 indicates no ability to administer, deliver, or fund any services.
This is accurate.
5.5/7
Reason 1: This idea came from directly Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.
This is a restatement of Fact 1. There is nothing new to add here.
5.5/7
Reason 2: Constitution Recognition for concrete results.
This is a restatement of Fact 5. There is nothing new to add here.
5.5/7
Reason 3: Ensure people have a better life.
This is also a restatement of Fact 5. There is nothing new to add here.
5.5/7
Reason 4: Bring our country together.
While voting "yes" does mean that the country is reconciled to its past to some degree, there are clearly those people who do not wish to be reconciled. Aboriginal and First Peoples who feel hurt will see this as inadequate. The racists will just point blank refuse to be reconciled or accept any responsiblity to a past, which quite frankly they do not care about and are fine with.
This is untrue.
5.5/8
Reason 5: Save money.
This is also a restatement of Fact 5. There is nothing new to add here.
5.5/8
Reason 6: The time is now.
Given that the Howard Government refused to say "sorry" to the Stolen Generations, and that despite the process of the Uluru Statement From The Heart passing over the table of the Abbott, Turnbull and Morrison Government, and with the current Dutton Opposition being very opposed to the change, then we can very safely assume that that side politics is very unlikely to have brought this about.
This claim, given that this was part of a political manifesto of one side of politics and if it fails is unlikely to occur again for a generation, holds up.
This is accurate.
6.5/9
Reason 7: Practical advice that works.
This is a restatement of Fact 4. There is nothing new to add here.
6.5/9
Reason 8: Making government work better.
This is also a restatement of Fact 5. There is nothing new to add here.
6.5/9
Now:
6.5/9 = 72.22%
The "Yes Case" is not watertight; nor is it a Distinction or Credit, but it is a very good pass.
The NO Case
1. THIS VOICE IS LEGALLY RISKY
The argument which follows and which states that there is no comparable constitutional body is a straight up lie. The Maori Seats in the New Zealand Parliament, often meet and hold parliamentary select committees on matters which affect Maori.
Furthermore, the Australian Law Council has stated that the overwhelming majority of legal opinion is that the proposal for the Voice is both constitutionally and legally sound.
This is a lie.
0/1
2. THERE ARE NO DETAILS
This is a straight up lie. The full text of the constitutional amendment is printed in the pamphlet. 26 pages of explanatory notes to the Uluru Statement from the Heart were published in 2017. The government's explanatory memorandum was presented to parliament in March 2023. A joint parliamentary committee report on the amendment was published in May 2023. The solicitor-general’s white paper of legal advice published in April 2023. The minutes, communiques and advice of the Referendum Working Group and Constitutional Expert Group, who did their work across 2022-23 was published in May 2023.
This is so much a lie that it should be given minus points and the knave who dared to have this published in an official pamphlet should be made to sit in a chair and be pointed at and publicly ridiculed. The problem is that there is no law against lying.
Granted that we do no know about the specific operation of the Voice and its membership, but to suggest that we know nothing is to be dog ignorant, and it is both misleading and deceptive to sat that there no information about how these details will be determined, as significant details are provided in the government’s publicly released design principles; when very clearly they have been.
This is a lie.
0/2
3. IT DIVIDES US
This is an interesting claim because although this proposes a new body which is for Aboriginal and Torres Straight Island peoples, this assertion is that that the addition of The Voice is racially exclusionary to those people who are not indigenous. From an absolutist perspective, this is course true. This is the beauty of this lie. In order to effectively tell a lie, it is incredibly useful to start with truth but in bad faith. The beauty of the "no" case's lie is that in stating this as hard fact, it then deliberately whitewashes over the already existing truth that the current constitutional position, already includes a different treatment of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, including a power to make special laws based on race in Section 25 as well as Section 51.
The statement that all Australians are equal before the law, is also a straight up lie because at the centre of the Constitution is the fact that all Six States and the Commonwealth gained their lands through genocide and dispossession and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people have never had any channel of equity through treaty process and absolutely nothing by means of representation had they been admitted as an original state.
This is a sneaky lie.
0/3
4. IT WON’T HELP INDIGENOUS AUSTRALIANS
This is just a straight up lie which deliberately ignores that significant research supports the view that greater input from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people into government policies and laws that affect them will result in better outcomes for them, and better use of public funding.
This is a lie.
0/4
5. NO ISSUE IS BEYOND ITS SCOPE
The words of the text as published state that:
(ii) the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice may make representations about matters "relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples".
Where is the text which suggests that its power and scope are plenary? There aren't any.
This is a lie.
0/5
6. IT RISKS DELAYS AND DYSFUNCTION
The statement that The Voice could appeal to the Court if there is a decision that it is not satisfied with, kind of ignores the fact that anyone already can appeal to the Court on matters in which they have standing. All Argument 6 is, is a statement of the rights which currently exist for all citizens as it is.
This is misleading.
0/6
7. IT OPENS THE DOOR FOR ACTIVISTS
How?
I genuinely do not understand how this claim even remotely relates to the text at hand. This is an interesting piece of rhetoric but it is irrelevant, immaterial and illogical. You can not just assert a thing which is not directly connected to the text at hand.
This is misleading.
0/7
8. IT WILL BE COSTLY AND BUREAUCRATIC
This claim is a scare campaign which is both unbudgeted and uncosted within the scope of the document. Surely The Voice's budget would be part of any ordinary and democratic budgetary process, as part of Appropriation Bill No.1.
This is misleading.
0/8
9. THIS VOICE WILL BE PERMANENT
I do not understand how on one hand you can state that there are no details; yet on the other hand claim to already have details.
As it is, this text is pretty vague but legislation can and does pass through the parliament and can and does get changed subject to normal democratic process. As for the statement that it is permanent, the Australian people can abolish the Voice through a referendum just as they can set it up in the first place.
This is misleading.
0/9
10. THERE ARE BETTER WAYS FORWARD
I do not see this as being demonstrated in the real world. No proposals were put forward to address the issues that the Voice is directed at. No attempts were made to address the Uluru Statement from the Heart.
This is misleading.
0/10
Now:
0/10 = 0%.
The "No Case" has made no attempt to lay out a genuine case but perhaps it does not need to.
The Balance.
The differences between the "Yes Case" and the "No Case" are stark. Although having said that, if one were to give relative weight to the amount of truth contained in the two sets of arguments, then one side always wins here because the other makes no attempt to engage with the truth. Why should it? It has no need to.
Without opening any of the detail, this whole issue looks very similar to Dietrich Bonhoeffer's Theory Of Stupidity. When even the idea of doing what is just, can be excused away with the repetition of slogans and assertions which appear to have no basis in fact, as well as a basic denial of history, then even laying out any kind of argument is pointless.
Truth, facts, logic, and empathy, only work if the person to whom you are speaking to has some kind of commitment to those things. If they do not, then all of the truth, facts, logic, and empathy, matters not a jot. You may as well be presenting your arguments to a brick.
Personally I think this is a 72-0 victory in terms of the value of argument presented but if the truth does not matter, if empathy does not matter, and if addressing justice does not matter, then those things must lose.
The Outcome.
My suspicion is that the referendum will fail because Australia is weirdly a conservative country. When things change they change all at once but when they don't they really do not. Political inertia, that is that people and the country is lazy, in that it likes to keep on doing what it is already doing unless acted upon by a seismic force, is very much the stock and trade of Australian politics.
The underlying injustice at the heart of the constitution of Australia is that the Crowns acquired the land through genocide and dispossession. My suspicion is that the referendum will fail because Australia as a nation is in fact tacitly fine with that, because the vast majority of people simply do not care.
No comments:
Post a Comment