Why it’s vital to present a model before we vote
Shorter JQ: Albanese should release draft legislation before the Voice referendum if it is to succeed. Not doing so is a recipe for failure based in part on a mistaken analysis of the 1990s Republic referendum, which I shared for a long time.
Although polls suggested majority support for a republic, the Turnbull/Keating proposed model (appointed president) was defeated. Analysis assumes alternative of elected president would also be defeated. So, suggestion is “vote on principle of referendum first, then choose model”. Sounds convincing, BUT
On the stated facts, status quo would beat either alternative and is therefore the Condorcet winner. On most theories of voting it should be selected.
More, given the stated facts, and assuming rational voters, Republic should lose in the first round.
Suppose “appointed president” would beat “elected president”. Then “elected president” voters who prefer “no change” to “appointed” should vote “No” in the first round to prevent this happening.
On the stated facts, status quo would beat either alternative and is therefore the Condorcet winner. On most theories of voting it should be selected.
More, given the stated facts, and assuming rational voters, Republic should lose in the first round.
Suppose “appointed president” would beat “elected president”. Then “elected president” voters who prefer “no change” to “appointed” should vote “No” in the first round to prevent this happening.
Voters aren’t perfectly rational calculators. In the Brexit referendum, for example, people voted for radically inconsistent versions of Brexit (from Singapore-on-Thames to Hang the Bankers), all expecting that their own version would prevail
But, in the context of an Australian referendum, any ambiguity will be resolved by voting No. If there isn’t a clearly described model on offer, people will imagine the version they like least, then vote for or against that. I’m a Yes, pretty much regardless of the model, but I don’t think I’m representative of a majority of voters in a majority of states.
*This is an unrolled version of a thread on Mastodon (@johnquiggin), so it may be telegraphic in places.
John Quiggin 
I am old enough to remember the 1977 referendum on Simultaneous Elections for the Senate and the House of Representatives. On that occasion there was a 62.22% YES vote nationally but the referendum was still defeated because there were wide variations in support for it between the States and majorities were only achieved in three States. On the question of Voice I also expect disparities in opinion between the States to be significant and so I think there is a real possibility that it could achieve a popular majority but not get up because of opposition in the “frontier states”. For this reason I think a decision by the Queensland Greens to commit their formidable on-the-ground campaigning abilities to the “YES” case could make a significant difference to the outcome by flipping Queensland.
On the specific issue raised in the OP, an optimum needs to be achieved between constitutional and political considerations that don’t neatly align. It is true that, if the referendum proposal is too general, some potentially sympathetic voters could demur from supporting it because of uncertainty about what they are voting for. On the other hand, too detailed a proposal could cause other potentially sympathetic voters to vote “NO” on the basis of disagreement with specific details. There is a political course to be steered between these two hazards.
There is also a good argument that an amendment to the Constitution should be phrased in general terms, especially if the amendment empowers the Parliament to legislate on the specifics of the matter. Anne Twomey has put the argument recently:
https://www.smh.com.au/national/parliament-not-the-devil-should-control-the-detail-on-the-voice-20230101-p5c9pe.html
However, what might be an appropriate level of generality from the standpoint of constitutional drafting may not align with the point of political balance I discuss above.
There is also the important principle of keeping faith with the First Nations people who have formulated the Statement from the Heart and the Voice, Treaty, Truth program.
https://ulurustatement.org/
Paul, I think you, and Twomey, are missing the point. No one, AFAICT, is suggesting that the constitutional amendment should contain a lot of detail. The point is that the government should say what kind of legislation it has in mind before the referendum is held. That leaves it open to a subsequent government to change things, but means that people aren’t voting blind, which (contra Twomey) they will be if all they have to go on is a one-sentence amendment to the Constition
Of course it is ridiculous to be asked to vote on a proposal to change the constitution without this being spelt out fully. It isn’t just a tactical error that might mean a dominant no vote (as you seem to suggest above) but is also just morally wrong.
But there are worse problems than this. The most obvious is to try to understand why we are having a referendum at all. The “voice” group will not, it is claimed, have the power to veto legislation and its composition and structure will be entirely the business of the Parliament. In short, it is claimed to be purely an advisory body though with permanent existence but of form that can be changed at the whim of Parliament.
Why not form an advisory group tomorrow and avoid the need for a referendum? the simple answer to this rhetorical question is that many think we are being sold bunkum by “voice” supporters. Will there be appeals to the High Court when Parliament overrules advice from the “Voice” irrespective of how it is comprised? If that is true we are being sold deceit. If it isn’t true and this cannot happen then why the need for a referendum to form a body which has no veto power and, in effect, which is purely advisory.
I will vote “no” and its not because the details of the representation have not been spelt out and not because I oppose racially-based democracy – although I do oppose these things. This “Voice” proposal seems based on a deceit.
Why, then, are you not reassured to know that this won’t happen?
The exact text of the proposed change to the constitution will be spelled out in full before anybody has to vote in the referendum.
But I bet that doesn’t reassure you, does it? I’m curious about how you’d explain why not.
J-D, Try reading John’s post. You are as confused as usual.
Your mental state appears to be as usual, although I am not sure ‘confused’ would be the best word to describe it. I have a suspicion, however, that John Quiggin would prefer us both to refrain from speculating about each other’s usual mental states, and I would certainly be happy to so refrain.
I have read the post. I have also read about the history of constitutional amendment.
Several past proposals to amend the Constitution, including some successful ones as well as some unsuccessful ones, have sought (and in some cases achieved) changes to the constitutional text which would grant power to the Commonwealth Parliament to legislate in stipulated areas. For that matter, the original proposal for the Constitution, stipulating areas in which the Commonwealth Parliament would have the power to legislate, was also submitted to popular vote; and, as with subsequent proposals, it was not stipulated in advance what would be the content of the legislation which the Parliament would use those powers to adopt.
What is ridiculous is to suggest that it’s wrong to grant the Commonwealth Parliament power to legislate except where the content of the legislation to be enacted by that power is stipulated in advance. If the exact content of the legislation is stipulated in advance, then where is the need to grant legislating power to the Commonwealth Parliament?
What I find in John Quiggin’s post, having read it, is no suggestion that it is ridiculous to grant power to the Commonwealth Parliament to legislate without stipulating in advance the content of that legislation, but rather a suggestion that in the circumstances of this particular case the likely attitudes of the voting population will be an obstacle to their adoption of a proposal without more advance notice of Commonwealth intentions, attitudes about which he suggests not that they are rightly avoiding the ridiculous but rather, in his words, that they are ‘not perfectly rational’.
JQ thanks for the clarification. Yes, the government could do as you suggest, and should probably tack as closely as it can to the Calma-Langton proposal which is in the public domain.
Why oh why does the Prime Minister provide a free FUD kick to, of all people, Ben Fordham!
As usual, the fourth estate has skin in the game. Ours.
“The prime minister, Anthony Albanese, has spoken to 2GB Radio about the Indigenous Voice, …. “but Fordham did not read the full quote.”
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/live/2023/jan/18/australia-news-live-updates-chalmers-china-economy-gdp-storm-flood-fire-victoria-queensland-albanese-voice-referendum?page=with:block-63c709028f08700e2aeafda2#block-63c709028f08700e2aeafda2
Albo may do a brochure to every household.
Albo may make his own podcast.
Albo may commision and pay for massive advertising, msm, social & influencer campaign.
The quoted transcript ends with;
Albo: “They’ll be processes to deal with these issues. A whole range of the further serious detail. Not whether they’ll be an office or not.”
… am-BIG-uous! “They’ll be” “will be” “serious detail”…
A whole range of serious detail post referendum. As JQ said “in the context of an Australian referendum, any ambiguity will be resolved by voting No”.
Ambiguity aplenty.
A John Hewson cake moment. Fordham got what he wanted and so did his listeners. They are influencers. Opinionated, negative and loud.
My optimism just went down a notch or three.
Here is the Indigenous Voice Co-Design Process Final Report by Tom Calma and Marcia Langton, which I referenced in my previous comment.
Click to access indigenous-voice-co-design-process-final-report_1.pdf
This seems to me a reasonable question. There may be a point I have missed which some more thoroughly informed person could elucidate, but as far as I can tell the Prime Minister’s suggestion is to propose an amendment to the Constitution to grant the Parliament power to make a kind of law which the Parliament would already have the power to make under the Constitution as it stands now. Why, then, have I decided to vote Yes if the referendum takes that form? Because if the referendum proposal is adopted, it will make people feel better, whereas if it is rejected, people will feel bad; and, on the whole, I prefer to make people feel better and not to make them feel bad.
The link to the 260 page articulation of the “voice” is useful, Paul. A testimony to the standard consulting joke: We didn’t have time to write a short useful report so we wrote a long useless one. The report is dotted with inconsequentialities, verbiage and ambiguity e.g. “It is very clear that an Indigenous Voice is a necessary, pragmatic and natural step for our country as we work towards creating a better shared future for all Australians”. Nuh, don’t see that at all – not all Australians back this type of call at all. I don’t.
Let me pick out two more specific quotes:
“Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people need to engage with all levels of government to have their voices heard. It is also imperative that the Indigenous Voice is not pigeonholed to only deal with the Indigenous elements of governments but works with all portfolios and agencies.” (P.222).
Does that include foreign policy?
Almost in contradiction to this inclusiveness on page 11:
“The Australian Parliament and Government would be ‘obliged’ to ask the National Voice for advice on a defined and limited number of proposed laws and policies that overwhelmingly affect Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. There would also be an ‘expectation’ to consult the National Voice, based on a set of principles, on a wider group of policies and laws that significantly affect Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples”
This narrows the scope of the “Voice” but is more direct about the requirements for Parliament to listen. Note the rabbit’s ears around the words ‘obliged’ and “expectation”. What is the meaning of these rabbit-eared selections? Why the coyness? How do proponents of the “voice” see themselves as constraining the current autonomy of Parliament. There seems to be some sort of belief that there will be some real transfer of power.
I repeat my basic question. Why the need for a referendum if the “Voice” is purely advisory. We don’t need legislative changes for Parliament to legislate on recommendations from a representative body. If it isn’t a purely representative body then how does it bind the Parliament? What is the substantive power shift?
Its a fair question that is separate from the far less important question of how the “Voice” body is to be constituted. Who cares about the former anyway if, as Albanese has said, Parliament will decide on how the “Voice” is to be constituted.
Since you repeat your basic question, I repeat my basic answer: because it will make people feel better.
Albanese may legislate the “Voice” if the referendum fails! Farcical?
https://www.theage.com.au/politics/federal/albanese-keeps-door-open-to-legislating-voice-if-the-referendum-fails-20230118-p5cden.html
“…we work towards creating a better shared future for all Australians”.
Harry – “not all Australians back this type of call at all. I don’t.”
Why not Harry?
Why don’t you back a better shared future, Harry?
Harking back to my first comment, Australia has had simultaneous HoR and Senate elections from 1972 onwards, including after the 1977 referendum. The passing of a Constitutional amendment at referendum may mandate the Parliament and/or government to proceed in a particular way, but the failure of such an amendment to pass does not preclude the Parliament and/or government from proceeding in that way. If a popular majority exists for Voice the Federal Government should certainly take account of that in deciding how to proceed if the double majority threshold is not reached.
Obviously I don’t know what’s going on in Harry’s mind. However, I am reminded of a discussion I recall from a blog of how some people reason (wrongly) from alleged scriptural references to agents of the devil talking about peace to the conclusion (not only false, but harmful) that anybody who talks about peace is an agent of the devil.
So I suppose it would be possible for somebody to reason (wrongly) from the (accurate) observation that sometimes ill-intentioned people talk about making the world better to the conclusion (not only false, but harmful) that anybody who talks about making the world better is ill-intentioned.
An obvious snark J-D and Rog. If you cited the whole passage my opposition is clearly to the “Voice”. What a silly way of attempting to derail a discussion.
This thread is about the Voice, I was referring to your reaction to the Voice and your misrepresentation of the Voice – how many voices are you hearing Harry?
I see that the LNP/Murdoch coalition has ramped this issue to the nth degree – a cynical and unworthy campaign by the usual bunch of ratbags.
Norway, Sweden and Finland have had Sámi parliaments with considerably greater powers than the proposed Voice for decades. Greenland has a level of autonomy from Denmark that dwarfs any other indigenous community in the world.The result simply hasn’t been the kind of social divisions that Voice opponents claim is inevitable.
Harry Clarke, the intentions behind a lot of what you write are not obvious to me, and if you are operating on the assumption that your meaning will be obvious, then either you’re giving me too much credit or you’re giving yourself too much credit (or possibly both, I suppose).
The ABC report last night on the Advance Australia group, who are spreading misinformation, disinformation and outright lies re the Voice, revealed that Tony Abbott is one of their advisors. It now seems that the IPA are also involved in this campaign.
Their goal is to use the Voice to establish a point of difference and then wreck the Voice, despite all the qualified and expert advice in support of the Voice. This is climate change all over again, their only policy is to wreck policy.
rog says: ” how many voices are you hearing”?
We don’t hear the zombie voices – lobbyists. How many special unseen contacts?
*
“How parties and interest groups protect their ties: The case of lobbying laws”
Michele Crepaz
First published: 20 March 2020
https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12308
“Through a comparative case study of the introduction of lobbying laws in Austria, Australia, and Ireland, this paper suggests that parties and groups shape the content of lobbying regulations in such a way to protect their relationship.”
*
And read our Exemptions. You could drive a Spacex Falcon Heavy through them;
“Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme Act 2018
– C2019C00133
“Division 4—Exemptions https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2019C00133
*
And I expect Tony Abbott to be in favour of The Voice!
Wikipedia:
“Abbott said:[241]
“Australia is a blessed country. Our climate, our land, our people, our institutions rightly make us the envy of the earth, except for one thing—we have never fully made peace with the First Australians. This is the stain on our soul that Prime Minister Keating so movingly evoked at Redfern 21 years ago. We have to acknowledge that pre-1788 this land was as Aboriginal then as it is Australian now. Until we have acknowledged that we will be an incomplete nation and a torn people … So our challenge is to do now in these times what should have been done 200 or 100 years ago to acknowledge Aboriginal people in our country’s foundation document. In short, we need to atone for the omissions and for the hardness of heart of our forebears to enable us all to embrace the future as a united people.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Abbott
(Political Views tab)
*
And the new lobbyists;
…”a far greater threat looms: artificial intelligence replacing humans in the democratic processes — not through voting, but through lobbying.”
“How ChatGPT Hijacks Democracy”
nytimes
com/2023/01/15/opinion/ai-chatgpt-lobbying-democracy.html
As a general observation, pointing out the bad motives of those opposing the Voice referendum is unlikely to help in getting the referendum passed. (Nearly all of) those who respond favorably to points like this are already committed Yes voters.
To committed No voters, perhaps you’ve missed Victoria. Although a National Voice enshirined in the Constitution may seem absolute, we as a federation of States have examples which would to me, as a Yes to the Voice, make the current Federal debate about the Voice seem more culture war than an appraisal. What is wrong with the Victorian Voice & Treaty?
“Completed: A representative Voice for First Peoples
A Statewide election established the First Peoples’ Assembly of Victoria to represent the voice of First Peoples in the Treaty process”
From :
“The Treaty journey to date
“Completed: Laws to protect Treaty
The Advancing the Treaty Process with Aboriginal Victorians Act 2018(Treaty Act) was enacted as Australia’s first ever Treaty legislation.
“Completed: A representative Voice for First Peoples
A Statewide election established the First Peoples’ Assembly of Victoria to represent the voice of First Peoples in the Treaty process.
“Completed: Truth-telling
The Yoorrook Justice Commission is established to inquire into historic and contemporary injustices experienced by First Peoples across all areas of social, political and economic life, and the relationship between historical injustices and ongoing systemic injustices experienced today.
“Completed: An independent ‘Treaty Umpire’
The Treaty Authority is independent from Government and will consist of five to seven members who will oversee and facilitate Treaty negotiations. The Treaty Authority and Other Treaty Elements Act 2022, supports the establishment and ongoing operation of the Treaty Authority.
“Completed: Agreed rules and process for Treaty-making
The Treaty Negotiation Framework sets out the process and rules for negotiating a Statewide Treaty and Traditional Owner Treaties between the State and First Peoples. The Framework establishes a Treaty process in Victoria that is inclusive and open to all First Peoples, as well as ensuring the protection of Traditional Owners with existing legal rights, such as Native Title.
“Completed: Independent funding for Treaty negotiations
The Self-determination Fund will provide First Peoples, including Traditional Owners, with a financial resource, independent from the State, to achieve ‘equal standing’ in Treaty negotiations. The Self-determination Fund will also build capacity, wealth and prosperity for First Peoples.
“Next step: Treaty negotiations commence
With these elements in place, Treaty negotiations can now commence. The Treaty Authority, once operational, will support First Peoples groups to register for Treaty negotiations and will invite the State to join Treaty negotiations.
https://www.firstpeoplesrelations.vic.gov.au/treaty-victoria
Gareth Evans describes the draft text that is to be provided with the ballot paper;
1. There shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice.
2. The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice may make representations to Parliament and the Executive Government on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.
3. The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws with respect to the composition, functions, powers and procedures of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice.
It would seem that opposition to the Voice has no basis in fact.
More Voices – in Jim Chalners head, and ear.
Puff piece by AFR befire the last Federal election.
Find
1) the Freudian slip &
2) missing groups &
3) the ghost of – what’s his name again? – oh yeh, Josh Frydenberg!
Take it away JC & The Voices;
“Like under Keating, Chalmers says Labor will be consultative with business and recognises the strength of the private sector.
“That the private sector will lead this recovery and is the engine room of the economy is self-evident and not contested by me ever,” Chalmers says, in a veiled reference to Treasurer Josh Frydenberg’s push for a business-led economic recovery.
“Asked what the role of government is in the economy, Chalmers says: “The role of government is to promote competition, make sure people have a pool of skilled workers and to provide guard rails and co-investment where it is necessary.”
“In the business community, Chalmers is personally close to Andrew Fraser, the former Queensland state treasurer and former SunSuper chairman.
“Cameron Clyne, the former NAB chief executive and Rugby Australia chairman, is another he confides in. Australian Banking Association chief and former Queensland Labor premier Anna Bligh is another.
“Chalmers co-wrote a book in 2017 with former NBN Co chief executive Mike Quigley,Changing Jobs: The fair go in the new machine age. They argued that technology such as robotics and artificial intelligence need not worsen inequality, if education, industrial relations and social security keep pace with the digital disruption. Chalmers and Quigley argued against a basic universal income, disappointing some on the left.
…
https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/this-labor-high-flyer-puts-business-at-the-forefront-20220506-p5aj63
As rog says:”It would seem that opposition to the Voice has no basis in fact.”.
When did THE Voice:
– “an “ancient and undoubted birth-right and inheritance of the subjects of England”, rather than being dependent on the king’s grace”… become a reality?
“Age of Invention: Shellfish Monopolists
…
“the English Parliament of 1621. It was a watershed event in constitutional history, but is essentially unknown to the public at large, and seems to be very poorly understood even by many historians.
“It matters, because Parliament very suddenly and unexpectedly decided that it wasn’t just a legislative body, but a court of law. It brought down the Lord Chancellor,Francis Bacon, for corruption — yes, that Francis Bacon famous for his philosophy of science. It systematically examined and decried patent monopolies, which had been granted by the king.
“And by the end of it, a core group of MPs had defiantly asserted their right to discuss whatever they wished in Parliament as an “ancient and undoubted birth-right and inheritance of the subjects of England”, rather than being dependent on the king’s grace — an idea that James I had already warned them was downright “anti-monarchical”. At this defiance he dissolved the Parliament in disgust.”
…
https://antonhowes.substack.com/p/age-of-invention-shellfish-monopolists
Another voice to parliament –
Angus Taylor’s brother & the 21stC Bunyip JamLand Aristocracy
“The [Innovation and Productivity Council] IPC is not a decision-making body of government and Mr will not be remunerated for his role as chair,” Henskens said.”
*
“Liberal donor brother of Angus Taylor appointed to independent NSW body by Coalition
“Exclusive: Party treasurer Charlie Taylor has attended fundraisers hosted by the minister who appointed him
…
“The New South Wales government appointed a senior Liberal official – who made thousands of dollars in political donations to the party – as the chair of a productivity council set up to provide independent advice on innovation in the state
Penny Sharpe, “How many other donors and mates have been appointed in the lead-up to the [next] election?” she said.
“Board positions for the IPC were advertised last August, and were assessed by a panel inside Investment NSW, the same agency that oversaw Barilaro’s controversial post to the New York trade job last year.
““The [Innovation and Productivity Council] IPC is not a decision-making body of government and Mr Taylor will not be remunerated for his role as chair,” Henskens said.
…
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/feb/09/liberal-donor-brother-of-angus-taylor-appointed-to-independent-nsw-body-by-coalition
*
“What’s the go with Angus Taylor”
(Fun family facts)
https://notgoodpod.com/020-taylor/
*
“Dan Deniehy’s Bunyip Aristocracy Speech – for the 21st C Taylor Family.
…
“But because it was the good pleasure of the puissant Taylor clan and the respectable tail of that puissant Legislative body, whose serpentine movements (loud laughter) were so ridiculous, we were not to form our own Constitution, but instead of this we were to have an Upper House and a Constitution cast upon us, upon a pattern which should suit the taste and propriety of political oligarchs who treated the people at large as if they were cattle to be bought and sold in the market (loud cheers); or as they indeed were in American slave States, and now in Australian markets (tremendous cheering), where we might find bamboozled coolies and kidnapped Chinamen. (Immense applause.)
…
“In no country had the attempt been successfully made to manufacture an aristocracy pro re nata . It could not be done. They might as well expect honour to be paid to the nobles of King Kamehameha, or the ebony earls of the Emperor Soulouque of Hayti.
“The aristocracy of England was founded on the sword. The men that came over with William the Conqueror were the masters of the Saxons, and so were the aristocracy. The soldiers of Cromwell were the masters of the Irish, and so became their aristocracy. But he should like to know how the puissant Taylor clan and his clique had conquered the inhabitants of New South Wales – (great cheering) – except in the artful dodgery of doctoring up a Franchise Bill. (Great laughter.)
“If we were to be blessed with an aristocracy he would rather it should not resemble that of William the Bastard but of Jack the Strapper. (Great laughter.)
“But he trespassed too long on their time (no, no) and would only seek in conclusion, but to record two things.
“First, his indignant denunciation of any tampering with the purity of the elective principle, the only basis upon which good government could be placed; and, secondly, he wished them to regard the future destinies of their country.
“Let them, with prophetic eye, behold the troops of weary pilgrims, from foreign despotism, which would, ere long, be floating to their shores, and let them now – give the most earnest assurance, that such men as composed the the puissant Taylor clan clique, were not the representations of the spirit, the intelligence, of the freemen of New South Wales. (Vehement and prolonged applause.) The resolution was put and passed unanimously.”
https://web.archive.org/web/20120721221254/http://www.southsearepublic.org/story/2004/8/17/7431/18874
“White people have no face: Aboriginal perspectives on White culture and the costs of neoliberalism” ^2.
Lived experience & Aboriginals research providing their Voice to ‘us’!
Novel.
Maybe they have a point.
Research series example, lots more linked via article;
“Our research has shown Indigenous peoples’ needs cannot be understood and met, without Indigenous voices
…
“Our research has found including the perspectives of Indigenous people can disrupt long-held assumptions behind previously accepted policy measures. This indicates mechanisms such as the Voice could help deliver better policy by building better understanding of Indigenous affairs.
…
“Studies show that when political discourse and policy development is dominated by one group’s experiences and worldview, it results in racial biases and blind spots. This limits policy discussions and proposed solutions. Failure to incorporate Indigenous perspectives has contributed to decades of misinformed, ineffective policy. The Northern Territory Intervention is a prime example.”
…
https://theconversation.com/our-research-has-shown-indigenous-peoples-needs-cannot-be-understood-and-met-without-indigenous-voices-199286
*
2.
“White people have no face: Aboriginal perspectives on White culture and the costs of neoliberalism”
Authors:
Daphne Habibis
Penny Taylor
Bruna S. Rugaini
Abstract and Figures
“Australia has a significant Aboriginal population but while much is known about how White people view Aboriginal culture, Aboriginal perspectives on White culture are not well known. Drawing on survey (N = 474) and in-depth interviews (N = 43) we aim to reposition the normativity of White culture by asking a diverse group of Aboriginal people what they think of White Australian values and behaviours. Regardless of social position, as a subaltern population, respondents have a heightened sense of the alienation inherent within contemporary neoliberalism. Most respondents believe most Australians live in ways that go “against nature”, at high cost to the social fabric and environment. The contrast with the respondents’ own sense of connection to each other and to the natural world provides an opportunity to reset the race relationship because it demands a re-evaluation of the hegemonic assumptions within the reconciliation dyad. The findings disrupt the identities of Aboriginal and White people, and position Aboriginal people as both deserving of inclusion and as proferring knowledge of benefit to all Australians.”
Citation: Daphne Habibis, Penny Skye Taylor & Bruna S. Ragaini (2020) White people have no face: Aboriginal perspectives on White culture and the costs of neoliberalism, Ethnic and Racial Studies, 43:7, 1149-
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/335000149_White_people_have_no_face_Aboriginal_perspectives_on_White_culture_and_the_costs_of_neoliberalism
This certainly rang true to me. I am a strange sort of neuro-diverse white and this is how I see a lot of white people.
“From Jo’s perspective, her non-Aboriginal colleague’s behaviour shows a lack of sincerity as impression management is prioritised over social relationality. She observes how White competitiveness results in instrumentalism and inauthenticity and contrasts this with the relational orientation central to Aboriginal culture (Burbank 2006; Moreton-Robinson 2017).”
Of course, I can’t comment on “the relational orientation central to Aboriginal culture” because I know nothing about it but the rest of the above is how I see most white people: including myself and my near and dear at times because we are all caught in this trap of our own making.
“Dollar dreaming: commodity fetishism
Most respondents had an ambiguous attitude towards material wealth. While a good home and ‘nice clothes’ are appreciated, this co-exists with concern at the way love of money is like a religion within white culture:
Di: We say White fellas have dollar dreaming… to White fellas the dollar is sacred…
That’s their way of life, their dreaming, their culture.
Bob: All they think about is money, money, money,
Mark: Their God is money and I’m afraid they worship the material world.
Geena: Whereas with the White mob, I always notice they think about, not all of them but
a lot, always think about money. “(If) we do this – guess how much money we’re
going to make? (If) we do that – think about the money you’re going to get”. Me, I
don’t care about the money but especially like this, “working on the weekend you
get double time and time and a half” and everything like that. I don’t care about that
I’d rather be with my boy, with my family, just chilling. I don’t care about the money.”
All of this is so true. It’s our necrotic destructive culture. We are killing the natural world and killing ourselves. Right now, we would rather kill people than save them from our various self-created disasters because this is the way (for some) to make money in the short to medium term. Nothing else matters to people fully enculturated into the death cult of capitalism and they are unable to see matters in any other way.
Any ideas as to how to make a proximate connection of “Right now, we would rather kill people than save them from our various self-created disasters because this is the way (for some) to make money in the short to medium term.”.
Because whiteys – us – effects are so far removed from seeing any connections.
Maybe we could ask the aboriginals? Say by giving them a non binding non effective Voice to Parliament!
I’m always reminded if an urban legend about a local council who provided a perceived need to local aboriginals. When the council realised their largess (as they perceived it! ) was both ineffective and not what was wanted or needed, someone said “we should have picked up the phone and asked before we made a decision”. D’oh!
It is that simple. If government had ever bothered to make a call and listened to lived experience, we wouldn’t be fighting culture wars forever.
The Voice please.
Dying to be heard in NSW.
“More women in far-western New South Wales are dying from dehydration than from breast cancer and men are dying by suicide at two times the rate compared to those living in Sydney.”
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-02-14/growing-life-expectancy-gap-between-sydney-far-west-nsw/101969622
Money money everywhere but not a drop to drink.
Anne Twomey says;
“But it [The Voice] could not determine what those laws and policies will be.
“We have a democratic system for determining who makes the laws and who forms the government, and that is not going to be changed by the proposed constitutional amendment.”
. ..
https://theconversation.com/what-happens-if-the-government-goes-against-the-advice-of-the-voice-to-parliament-200517