By Anthony Haritos  

On the day Australia said “NO” to the planet’s oldest surviving First Nations people, we all must have a story to mark that famous day, surely.

I’ve got two.

Story one is more of an observation. The Greeks also have a day when they shouted a resounding No! “OXi” Day, October 28, 1940, was when the Greek PM rejected Italian dictator Benito Mussolini’s ultimatum to surrender in early-stage WWII, leading to delays in Hitler’s grand plan and arguably to the Germans invading Russia on 22 June 1941 – too late in the northern summer.

The difference between the two days? Greeks may continue to celebrate their declaration day long after we are all dead, rightly too, if it so pleases them. Whereas here in Australia …

The second story I won’t forget. Assisting my 91-year-old mother Helen to vote at the polling station on Saturday, I pointed out the allotted clearly marked rectangle as where to write her vote. Helen stared at the paper then said, “I can’t see it.”

I said, “There, inside that rectangle.”

She replied with a shaky voice, “Well, I can’t see a rectangle,” nodding her head with frustration. “This is what I’ve come to.”

I took hold of the bottom of the pencil and placed the graphite tip inside on the left-hand side of the rectangle.

I said, “It’s in position to write now Mum.” She scrawled. The Y was inside okay, the E straddling the bottom line 50-50 at an angle, and the S was completely outside below at 45 plus degrees.

Gawd. I placed the tip where the E should be, and said “Okay, try writing just the letters E and S again.”

My brain was squirming, just like that toad. I felt a sudden plunge into … pity. I felt so sorry for her. Again, the exercise of placing three letters on paper was a mess, but it had to do.

A year ago, I had taken Helen to an eye specialist where learning the full extent of her macular degeneration was a shock. I’ve been with her again the past three weeks. But this act brought it home. Bang.

At Dinah Beach Yacht Club I recounted the episode, adding, “Mum, with all the difficulties you face I’m really proud of you. How you keep getting up every day is amazing really.”

“Really? You are proud of me, Tony? Thank you. No one’s ever said they were proud of me before.”

I could close this with, “So we beat on, boats against the current …” but I won’t. It’s one appropriation too many. Then again, it’s small beer compared to appropriating the image of some Aboriginal elder someone downloaded from the internet, that someone then allocating some wise belief system to him. This happened time and again. Is this appropriation or misappropriation? Dunno. But it’s fucked. I do know that. And you’d hafta be a complete retard to do that. To go through the motions of carrying that out.

You’d have to be a kind of person I can’t put my finger on.

It was now well past midnight. I really did hope winners were being grinners down at No HQ, that they were all high on some kinda hog whooping it up, congratulating each other on … I really do. Congratulating each other … on what though? Can’t figure just what that would be.

Love to be a fly on the wall. What would they all be yelling at each other? Well, spitting on each other by now.

“I say, excellent appropriation there in Week Three! Brilliant use of that dead old blackfella with his cute little regulation-issue spear, paint and naga!! Fuck we got some good hits outa him. Had heads spinning, and that’s what we want. Hey old fella, you can relax now. I gotta say, you punched well above your weight there.”

Surely not? They wouldn’t be that witty. Not with an anchor tied to their ankle. Or necks. You’d hafta be a psychopath.

Yeah, hope they’re hog high cos I reckon, reckon tomorrow there’ll be that little bit, bitta niggle, you know … or maybe a deep dread …

The Yes crowds. Where are they? All off crying, weeping, sobbing … what did they expect? Get up, go on, lead, this is your time, laugh right back at ’em I say. Open season’s on them now, not you. Give ‘em both barrels, along with a spicy bitch-slap for luck.

Even before October 14, The Voice, or, to describe in full, the Referendum on the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice to Parliament, was in dire straits. Referenda proposals are rarely successful in Australia: prior to October 14, 44 referenda had been conducted since the creation of the Commonwealth in 1901. Only eight had passed.

On this occasion, the measure, which had been an article of faith for Labor Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, hinged on whether an advisory body purportedly expert and informed on the interests and affairs of the First Nations Peoples would be constitutionally enshrined. The body was always intended as a modest power: to advise Parliament on policies and legislative instruments directly of concern to them. But details on who would make up such a body, nor how it could actually achieve such Olympian aims as abolishing indigence in remote indigenous communities or reducing the horrendous incarceration rate among its citizenry, were deemed inconsequential. The near cocky assumption of the Yes case was that the measure should pass, leaving Parliament to sort out the rest.

In the early evening, it became clear that the Yes vote was failing in every state, including Victoria, where campaigners felt almost complacently confident. But it was bound to, with Yes campaigners failing to convince undecided voters even as they rejoiced in preaching to their own faithful. The loss occurred largely because of two marshalled forces ideologically opposite yet united in purpose. They exploited a fundamental, and fatal contradiction in the proposal: the measure was advertised as “substantive” in terms of constitutional reform while simultaneously being conservative in giving Parliament a free hand.

From one side, the conservative “Australia as egalitarian” view took the position that creating a forum or chamber based on race would be repugnant to a country blissfully steeped in tolerance and colour-blindness. Much of that is nonsense, ignoring the British Empire’s thick historical links with race, eugenics and policies that, certainly in the Australian context, would have to be judged as genocidal. Even the current Australian Constitution retains what can only be called a race power: section 51(xxvi) which stipulates that Parliament may make laws regarding “the people of any race for whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws.”

Beneath the epidermis of such a view is also an assumption held by such Indigenous conservatives as Warren Mundine that there have been more than a fair share of “voices” and channels to scream through over several decades, be it through committees or such bodies as the disbanded Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island Commission. The plethora of these measures did not address inequality, did not improve health and educational outcomes directly, and merely served to create a managerial class of lobbyists and activists. To merely enshrine an advisory body in the Constitution would only serve to make such an entity harder to abolish in the event it failed to achieve its set purposes.

Campaigners for the Voice will shake their heads and chide those who voted against the measure as backward reprobates who fell for a gross disinformation campaign waged by No campaigners. They were the ones who, like worshippers having filled the church till, could go about morally soothed proclaiming they had done their duty for the indigenous and downtrodden. Given that the No vote was overwhelming (59%), the dis- and mis-information angle is a feeble one.

It is true to say that the No campaign was beset by a range of concerns, some of them ingenuous, some distinctly not. There was the concern that, while the advice from Voice members on government legislation and policy would be non-binding on Parliamentarians, this would still lead to court challenges that would tie up legislation. Or that this was merely the prelude to a broader tarnishing of the Australian brand of exceptionalism: first, comes the Voice, then the Treaty process, then the “truth telling” to be divulged over national reconciliation processes. 

The first of these was always unlikely to carry much weight. Even if any parliamentary decision to ignore advice from the Voice would ever go to court, it would never survive the holy supremacy of Parliament in the Westminster model of government. What Parliament says in the Anglo-Australian orbit of constitutional doctrine tends to be near unquestionable writ. No court would ever say otherwise.

The second concern was probably more on point, insofar as the Voice would act as a spur in the constitutional system, one to build upon in the broader journey of reconciliation. But the No casers here, with former Australian foreign minister Alexander Downer being fairly typical of this, regard matters such as treaty and truth-telling commissions as divisive and best scotched. “The most destructive feature of failed societies is that they are divided on the basis of ethnicity, race or religion,” he wrote this month (paywalled). For Downer and his ilk, Australia remains a pleasant land – not exactly verdant, but pleasant nonetheless – where Jerusalem was built; don’t let any uppity First Nations advocate tell you otherwise.

The procedurally minded and pragmatic sort – which count themselves amongst the majority of Australian voters, were always concerned about how the advisory body would be constituted. Any new creature born from political initiative will always risk falling into the clutches of political intriguers in the government of the day, vulnerable to the puppeteering of the establishment. In Australian elections, where pragmatism is elevated to the level of a questioning, punishing God, the question of the “how” soon leads to the question of “how much”. The Voice would ultimately have to face the invoice. 

Another, equally persuasive criticism of the Voice came from what might be loosely described as the Black Sovereignty movement, led by such representatives as independent Senator Lidia Thorpe. From that perspective, the Voice is only a ceremonial sham, a bauble, tinsel cover that, while finding form in the Constitution, would have meant little. “This referendum, portrayed by the government as the solution to bringing justice to First Peoples in this country,” she opines, “has instead divided and hurt us.” 

Precisely because it would not bind elected members, it had no powers to compel the members of parliament to necessarily follow their guidance. “The supremacy of the colonial parliament over ‘our Voice’,” Thorpe goes on to stress, “is a continuation of the oppression of our people, and the writing of our people into the colonial Constitution is another step in their ongoing attempt to assimilate us.” This would make the body a pantomime of policy making, with its membership respectfully listened to even if they could be ultimately ignored. Impotence, and the effective extinguishment of indigenous sovereignty, would be affirmed.

Among some undecided voters lay an agonising prospect, notably for those who felt that this was yet another measure that, while well-meant in spirit, was yet another on the potted road of failures. The indigenous activist Celeste Liddle represents an aspect of such a view, one of dissatisfaction, stung by broken promises. Her view is one of morose, inconsolable scepticism. “I’m at a time in my life,” she writes in Arena, “where I have seen a lot of promises, a lot of lies, a lot of attacks on Indigenous communities, and not a lot of change. I therefore lack faith in the current political system and its ability to ever be that agent of change.” That’s an almost dead certifiable “No”, then.

The sinking of the Yes measure need not kill off the program for improving and ameliorating the condition of First Nations people in Australia. But for those seeking a triumphant Yes vote, the lesson was always threatening: no measure will ever pass the hurdle of the double majority in a majority of states if it does not have near uniform approval from the outset. It never has.

Today, we know the result of this referendum that has hung over us for what seems an eternity.

According to the polls and the media (notably News Corp), the “NO” campaign has won. Both sides exhausted their arguments with words that either spoke the truth, half-truths, or full-on lies – or repeated the exact same words for months.

It was a simple referendum that, if won, would have seen First Nations people take their rightful place in our society, recorded in our constitution. A proposition not at all unreasonable.

Secondly was a proposal to give a voice to these people who once needed no such thing. A voice recommending things to the Australian Parliament that might improve their lives, their health, their education and their longevity. Doing whatever they requested their way instead of the white man’s. However, the Parliament, if desired, could refuse any such request.

It was to be a voice that might make them as equal to us than they are now. But asking for that from conservatives with a superiority complex and a “born-to-rule” attitude was a bridge too far.

The proposal’s details were relatively simple and easy to understand until the warriors of relentless negativity with no motive other than to destroy an idea entered the fray.

Understanding why the conservative parties would want to waste this opportunity for the Indigenous people of this nation to advance themselves takes a bit of insight. First, one must look at the character of those who championed a conservative ‘No’ vote. From John Howard Tony Abbott to Peter Dutton, the forces of conservatism grew to oppose this referendum in the knowledge that their opposition would destroy it. Only parties without conscience, empathy and empty hearts would do such a thing.

The National Party, led by David Littleproud without much introspection or conscience, showed their true colours by opposing it before the questions were even known. He looked cowardly in the face of such uninformed thinking.

Peter Dutton, the negatively inclined Leader of the Opposition, opposed the referendum because it is what conservatives do. Afraid of change unless it profits. Is he a racist? I don’t know, but a glance at his history might illuminate.

There was never anything in it politically for him. It has yet to show him as an informed leader with a touch of sageness. On the contrary, this hostile victory has portrayed him as just one of those awful right-wing leaders from the darkened world of Trump.

His decision to oppose won’t win the teal seats back from the independent members of Parliament, far from it. He will only enhance his reputation as another in the Abbott mould – another spoiler. Being constantly pessimistic in a changing world will not convince the undecided, young, or disengaged voters who want change. It is not a strategy for winning the next election.

Joining the YES campaign could have changed his public image, had he taken a bi-partisan approach.

Aboriginal leaders Warren Mundine and Jacinta Yangapi Nampijinpa Price supported a NO vote because they wanted more than a voice. However, Mundine was so difficult to understand at times that I needed help comprehending his confusion. They wanted political power to go with a treaty designed by them.

They have both experienced success in life and may not want others to have the privileges that go with it.

Contradicting that, however, is that the LNP want Indigenous people to know their place in society. Equality is a word they would dare not use.

Two weeks ago, it became apparent that Dutton and Albanese were beginning to position themselves for a post-referendum period when both parties would require different words to explain a NO victory.

Why did the YES vote lose so miserably after 15 years of negotiation, endless meetings, goodwill, and good ideas? Let’s start with a known fact: Referendums have always been historically difficult to win, especially without consensus.

The Voice could have succeeded with Peter Dutton’s and his party’s support, but if politics is about ideas, he is totally against them. Like myself, those on the YES side will see it as an opportunity missed.

We will feel cheated that the voices of Dutton, Price and Mundine convinced most of the population that 1.4% of our people should be subjected to no improvement in their living standards while we want more. I feel ashamed that we cannot admit to the Aboriginal’s unique standing among us.

Of course, with truthfulness, we will feel aggrieved and, in part, blame the News Corp’s “no news” saturation and their dedication to conservative values. Some of us will feel guilty for not doing more. Others will wonder about the tools of propaganda and its success at conning the people. Scare campaigns still work as efficiently as not saying how you would approach the problem.

Those on the right will display their self-righteousness, telling the Prime Minister and our First Nations people it was the NO who were right all along and that the Prime Minister should get another job because he lacks judgment.

Now, having recorded a telling victory, Price will, in her high-handed way, demand that negotiations begin immediately for a treaty. She is probably not interested in any truth-telling. They will tell Albanese and his Government that the money would have been better spent on matches rather than wasting it on a proposal without any information about how it would work.

The Government will be less inclined to talk about a Treaty now than if the YES vote had won. That’s human nature. This means that we can forget the past few months’ events and the goodwill of our Aboriginal peoples. The status quo will remain in place for some time now, and Dutton, Mundine and Price should take the blame. Our First Nations peoples will justifiably feel angry and vent their spleen. Albanese may talk about alternatives, but there are none on the table.

However, history shows no Government has ever lost an election after losing a referendum. (“If you don’t know, vote no”) was a message calculated to turn off lazy minds who might be bothered to find out, and, in the course of it being too hard, that’s what they did?

For his part, Peter Dutton is still acting as a leader left over from ten years of less-than-mediocre governance. A group of right-wing wankers that showed a liking for corruption and wrongdoing. Opposition, for opposition’s sake, is a useless compass when seeking the highest office.

He is fast becoming Australia’s Donald Trump. Full of the same kind of bullshit. His exaggerated style speaks from the lowest podium about things of monumental importance. He offers nothing other than his self-importance, which may be necessary to him, but in terms of the nation, it is nothing more than weaponised mendacity.

The failure of the YES VOTE will flatten the many fine people, not just First Nations people, who thought they might add a bit of history to the already 65,000 years of existence. They have taught us a patience that ever lingers, talking to the light of day and the spirits of the blackest nights.

Last but not least, l believe Peter Dutton has circumvented any chance of us becoming a republic soon.

By Allan Richardson  

Unless Erwin Schrödinger and Dr Anne Twomey have secretly colluded, I’m not a constitutional lawyer. Nor am I even a conveyancing clerk. The nearest I come to law offices is to sign compulsory documents, when electronic signing is unavailable. That establishes my law credentials. Although I am seeking involvement in the burgeoning APT (Australian Pub Testers).

It’s said that it’s the people who make the ultimate decision in a referendum. This is superficially true, but the wording of the referendum is the real driver. This is common knowledge to the proponents of both sides of the argument of course, but as soon as the major political parties decided that it was their responsibility to join the fray and to drive everyone into making political decisions, it became as dishonest and grubby as an election campaign! As always, the white noise obscured the facts. Dutton will never recover from Widening the Gap, but so what? He’s just another LNP black hole.

The failure of the referendum will not be the shock to the First Nations community that has been mooted. It becomes just another disappointment in an endless catalogue of FNP subjugation and disenfranchisement.

The real loser of a referendum fail is the Australian electorate. The opportunity for major reforms to our defective social cohesion has just been squandered by both major political parties, and both need to be held accountable.

It may be counter-intuitive but compare Albanese with Netanyahu. The latter is said to have deliberately strengthened Hamas, the theory being that he was seeking justification for an all-out assault on the Palestinians, so as to reverse their ‘illegal’ occupation once and for all. Albanese deliberately insisted on bundling the Voice with Constitutional recognition of the FNP, and refused to consider any changes to the wording, knowing that this applied the kiss of death to the entire process, while blowing millions of dollars and many months of government commitment. And as expected, Dutton did what Dutton always does, and said No to everything. The No campaign was never going to have a head-to-head debate, as it had no substantive argument, so the outcome was pre-determined. Do not for one minute imagine that the Prime Minister will be outraged, disillusioned or aghast after the failure of the ‘reform’. It’s just the hocus-pocus of politics.

Why do we continually allow ourselves to be duped by those for whom we’ve entitled with our votes? Whilst we continue to elect party politicians who prioritise self and party ahead of their electorates, or even the national interest, we can no longer uphold our pretence at democracy.

The party-political shenanigans must stop. Vote Independent where possible. Even when it’s as unlikely as a Teal defeating a ‘popular’ sitting Treasurer. Oh, wait …

Remember that feeling inside when the Matilda’s inspired the nation? Many of us didn’t even know the rules, everyone did by the end of it though. Excited conversations were had about whether we should call it soccer or football, as we recalled the nail-biting moments of that penalty shootout. Didn’t it feel good to feel connected to everyone? To enjoy goodwill so strong that you could hear the electricity crackling in the air. To feel pride so fierce that it gave you goosebumps and brought tears to your eyes all at once. It was addictive, and satisfied a yearning you didn’t realise you had.

This is what feeling united as a country feels like.

Our commonalities

Australians have more in common with Indigenous Australians, than we do differences. When we are being welcomed to country, we are being welcomed by a culture that welcomes us and respects country all at the same time. This isn’t far away from how many of us welcome people into our homes. ‘Make yourself at home’, or ‘my house is your house’, we say with affection. We hug and kiss each other on the cheeks and thank our guests for bringing a bottle of wine, or cake for us to enjoy together.

Time for change

It’s been fifty-six-years since the 1967 constitutional referendum gave the federal parliament power to decide upon Indigenous affairs. It was also when Aboriginal people were counted as part of the Australian population for the first time.

Twelve-years of consultation between over two-hundred-and-fifty Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Leaders and Elders, has led us to the Voice referendum. Politicians from governments on both sides have also been involved.

The constitution is a rule book from which laws can be made

Unless you’re a member of a local club or are a company board member, most of us have never voted to amend a constitution before. For clubs they usually relate to things like increasing expenditure to fix the facilities of the club toilets. For companies, it could be a constitutional amendment regarding shares.

This isn’t about one group of people having more rights than others

This Saturday’s constitutional vote is not about giving Indigenous people more rights than everyone else. Did you know that we are the only liberal democracy in the world without a Human Rights Act, or a Constitutional Charter of Rights? The author believes that we should be striving to include this into our constitution too.

This Saturday is about giving Indigenous people a seat at the table when it comes to the federal government making decisions about their affairs. Voting, Yes, will give them a way to provide advice directly to elected members of parliament; the ones that we vote for to do this type of work. The reason that the Voice needs to be formalised as part of the constitution via referendum, is to ensure that future governments can’t undo all of the hard work that has gone into getting to this point.

Final thoughts

As was explained to me by a voter that changed their mind about voting, No: “Who am I to stand in the way of a chance for Aboriginals to make their lives better?”

Indeed, how can we deny an opportunity that does not affect the vast majority of our lives in the slightest? Voting No will ensure more of the same, which clearly has not worked. Voting Yes will finally allow Indigenous Australians some control over their destinies.

Channel the warm glow in your heart that you felt for the Matildas, and vote Yes.

This article was originally published on MelMac Politics – Shining a light on politics.

By Joey King 

I desperately need help.

The Project will be sharing my story Friday, 6 October at 7pm. Please watch it and share about it.

I’m back in my car on the 12 October and I’m very stressed I won’t find anywhere before then.

I am a 54-year-old woman with long term, severe mental health concerns and I have been homeless since 07/19. I’ve been on the housing waitlist since 03/23 = 186 weeks when the average wait time is 113.5 weeks and I was priority list 04/22 = 75 weeks, when the average is 52 weeks.

I called the Department of Housing. They told me they were not allocating housing for 2022 approvals as yet. I could possibly have another 12 to 18 months of moving from house to house every month.

This is not a solution and while I like staying in beautiful homes and hanging out with cool animals, it is seriously affecting my mental health resilience and overwhelming despair I will ever have something of my own or be a part of a community again.

I have tried to house sit so that I don’t sleep in my car. I am on a couple of websites and four Facebook pages for sitting. Apart from students and tourists, there are more people struggling with the housing crisis wanting to house sit. People are also renting their homes and sitting to take advantage of the rental crisis. More competition and less sits available.

This is such an unstable form of accommodation, and the situation can change at any time dependent upon the needs of the people for whom I’m providing this service. When house sitting options are not available or the arrangement falls through, I’m at high risk of needing to reside in my car which puts my safety and health at risk.

I’m exhausted from this constant worry, my back hurts because I have to change beds so often and they are usually not good quality or sleeping in my car. I’m so tired of being surrounded by strangers’ belongings.

When I first became homeless, I was paying $200 per month for storage. I now pay $500 per month. My brother who lived with schizophrenia and has since died by suicide, used to work with wood and much of my furniture has been handmade by him. I haven’t seen any of it for more than four years.

I have no contact with my family. My support network is made up of old friends who live in Perth, mostly in the suburbs surrounding Fremantle. My long-term mental health conditions make it difficult for me to reach out to others and to establish new relationships. I am continually at risk of social isolation and my ongoing state of homelessness is detrimental to my mental health and as a result, continues to deteriorate because of the huge amount of duress I am endlessly under.

Due to ongoing homelessness, I am unable to establish roots within a community and I find it difficult to work toward my health, employment, and relationship goals. These goals have been identified within my NDIS plan and I’m currently receiving funding from the Federal Government to achieve these. I am unable to work toward these while I remain homeless and if I do not use this money, I will lose it through future audits and will not have funds once I am housed in the future to accomplish my goals.

Within my NDIS plan, I am funded for Core Supports. This funding can be used “to help with daily activities and my current disability related needs”. At times, I experience rolling panic attacks and I need overnight support. This requires the support worker to have their own room to sleep in. I currently cannot access these supports as it is usually a condition of the owners of the homes I sit, that I do not have people stay over. Another aspect of my transience is I cannot find an ongoing Support Worker. Moving north and south of the city and the southwest prevents me from forming a relationship with a Support Worker. This has obvious ramifications to my mental health, ability to interact and the risk of losing this funding because I’m not making use of it.

I have been diagnosed with major depression, social anxiety, Bi-Polar Disorder, psychosis, Borderline Personality Disorder, and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. As part of my recovery from these conditions, I engage in activities such as painting and exercise. Due to the social anxiety, it is often impossible for me to go outside, and I am currently unable to engage in these activities in other people’s homes.

My much-loved dog passed away last year, and on the advice of my psychiatrist, I have recently purchased a new dog.

I do not want to be this person but cannot see a way things will change without your help. I spent the weekend wondering what the point was anymore and regretting buying my dog. I should be in hospital, but I can’t because I’m looking after a stranger’s house and their pet.

Thank you for reading. Please share my story and watch The Project, so you understand what is happening to women in crisis circumstances, becoming the fastest growing demographic in homelessness.

I give consent for you to share my story with everyone you can think of and for everyone to share and watch my story on The Project.

Yours sincerely

Joey King

By Jane Salmon   

All the hyperbole about Pezzullo’s fall from grace is annoying.

Everything Pezzullo oversaw on Manus and Nauru was actually worse than all the insider grandstanding, the attacks on public service neutrality, the enabling of lobbyists, the damage to democracy, the filthy deals. He oversaw actual torture, restrictive practices, medical neglect, human despair, denial of access to lawyers, bashings, extreme corruption, abuse of youth.

The neutrality of the public service has always been a myth. But brutalising refugees is a very obvious low. Devastating more than 2000 lives is significant.

Media have been far too gentle with the Home Affairs culture for way too long.

Address that by all means, but also give the legacy caseload of refugees permanency now.

Now, how do I tackle this? Do I use the information in my “To read” list as source material for another article, or do I use it all as an overview of our politics in its current gloomy state? I select the latter and click into my “To read” box.

1. The first piece I come across makes a rather obvious point. What if the NO vote wins the upcoming referendum? Before I address the issue, I watched Warren Mundine on Insiders on Sunday, 17 September, and I was sometimes confused about who he was supporting.

He wanted a treaty where, as I believe, a Voice is a prerequisite, the first step toward getting there. It has taken 15 years to arrive at where we are today. A treaty or treaties may take as long.

And on this subject, what does a NO vote mean? Given the absence of other propositions, it must mean that it is a vote for the continued domination of Indigenous Australians. This thought arises from a rather excellent piece by Ryan Cox for the ABC on the ethics of the Voice.

2 Stuart Robert and the Synergy 360 procurement controversy rolls onward. Robert has, predictably:

“… emphatically denied allegations that Synergy 360’s co-owner proposed a structure for the former MP to profit from government contracts… In its interim report tabled last Wednesday, Parliament’s audit committee said it had received ‘concerning evidence … raising serious allegations and questions about financial inappropriateness, improper relationships and undisclosed conflicts of interest’ with parties receiving government contracts.

As a consequence, the committee has referred the matter to the NACC.

3 Next up is the latest report from the NACC:

Assessment is a process by which the Commission considers, first, whether the referral is in its jurisdiction and raises a corruption issue (which they call triaging) and, secondly, whether and if so, how to investigate the issue raised by the referral.

Since 1 July 2023, 310 referrals have been excluded at the triage stage because they do not involve a Commonwealth public official or do not raise a corruption issue.

198 referrals are pending triage.

150 referrals are currently in active triage.

145 referrals are currently under the second stage of assessment.

4 For something different:

“A recent poll of Anglican clergy for the Times showed that only a quarter think that today’s Britain is a Christian country. Almost two-thirds believed Britain could be called Christian “only historically, not currently”. The poll showed, too, majority support for priests to be allowed to marry gay couples and for the church to drop its opposition to premarital sex.”

In the same theme, this article about the state of religion in England somewhat mirrors its position in Australia, where its survival is also under threat. People may point to the tremendous past revivals, but they didn’t have to contend with today’s technologies.

Before I move on, you may have noticed that I am a devoted reader of The Guardian. You may not know it, but Malcolm Turnbull did a feasibility study before it entered Australia. I recall Turnbull saying at the time something like. “You may not like its politics but with Lenore Taylor and Katherine Murphy you can be assured that you will read the truth.” But don’t quote me.

5 This article by Paul Bongiorno titled Spectre of Berejiklian hovers over the National Anti-Corruption Commission caught my eye because finding that a person did something “seriously corrupt” and then doing nothing about it is like an egg half-cooked.

6 Last week, in my piece, The ALP is best prepared to take us into the future I briefly mentioned a speech by Gen Angus Campbell at the Australian Strategic Policy Institute Conference. It was one of those words that make you think of speeches that hit me right in that part of the brain that sends a shiver down your spine.

“Democracies face ‘truth decay’ as Artificial Intelligence blurs fact and fiction, warns head of Australia’s military.”

(This statement, and others, really got me thinking about how we are to combat the misuse of A-I in the coming years.)

He accused Russia of “wielding disinformation as a weapon of statecraft” in the United States and the United Kingdom. Such campaigns could increasingly be used to fracture “the trust that binds us”.

He said of the climate crisis:

“… we may all be humbled by a planet made angry by our collective neglect.

“Today, we are more connected and have access to more information than any other time in history – and also more disinformation. conference.

“We rightly pride ourselves on being an open, diverse and liberal society – in other words, exposed.

“Healthy and functioning societies like ours depend upon a well-informed and engaged citizenry.

“Unfortunately, it is often said, we are increasingly living in a post-truth world where perceptions and emotions often trump facts.

“We can sometimes slip out of the reality of these truths, mainly when so many lies are being thrust upon us.”

7 Another piece I highly recommend is by the editor of The AIMN. Michael Taylor systematically rebukes the rants of Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price:

“Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price’s comment that:

… she did not believe there are any ongoing impacts of colonisation, but in some cases, a “positive impact”.

… begs to be disputed. There is zero positivity in the planned extermination of the world’s oldest culture. But that was the plan…

In a younger Australia there was an agenda in both the colonial and early federal governments; that being the extermination of Aborigines. Not only was it the will of ‘man’ that the Aborigines be exterminated, but also the will of God. Or so they believed.”

8 Another is from the ever-popular and seriously funny Rossleigh titled The Clear Bias Of The Labor Government! It was another of his satirical gems:

“Of course, the people complaining about the bias of Labor on the Voice aren’t the slightest bit concerned that the Liberal Party have adopted a position. Neither are they concerned about the National Party’s decision to oppose it. Or Pauline Hanson’s One Notion. Or…”

Do yourself a favour and read these two truthworthy articles from two of The AIMN’s finest writers.

“Truthworthy.” Did I invent a new word?

9 My last read is from Freedom House, a piece about the growth of the Far Right in Europe, written by April Gordon who chillingly warns that:

“Far-right groups are growing in prominence and sophistication across Eurasia, particularly in countries where notable democratic and liberalising reforms have taken place. These movements have emerged in similar contexts and share certain characteristics, and should be evaluated as a phenomenon in their own right.”

There is much deeper stuff in my “To read file” and plenty more, but this will suffice for now.

By Anthony Haritos  

Yes, we were cheap. And we were very nasty. Yes, we did fuck your mind over. Yes, it’s true; we did twist your moral compass completely out of shape so that you’d never ever remember you ever ever had one.

Because – and this is a tad difficult since I feel we’re now old pals – you never ever had one.

Here’s the rub, baby. We worked very well together. A great team. So good in fact, they’re gone now. All of them. And there’s no one left to speak for you.

IN THE BEGINNING …

“It’s time now to round up all these subversives and traitors.”

When supporting the NO vote in The Voice includes this Facebook statement we have a problem.

When it was preceded by “Witch” and followed by “She should be charged with treason”, it’s not just Professor Marcia Langton who has a problem, nor the two authors, but all of us.

The last time we went through this routine bigtime the footnote was,

“Then they came for me – and there was no one left to speak for me”(1)

Given the movies documenting the descent from first line to last, one might suspect the line was placed mischievously. Yes, daily life is filled with boredom but …

This post isn’t to slag the creators of the comments nor defend the Yes vote, which is facing imminent defeat yet which on balance one can only advocate.

It’s however reminding how people can be easily transformed into cauldrons of hatred, and of the ramifications.

Germany 1930s from which the “Then they came for me …” poem sprang, saw Nazi media manipulators along with media and munitions Barons slavering for favour oversee the transformation.

(I feel like a crashing bore writing this stuff, ‘cos we already know this, It’s elementary, my Dear Watson, isn’t it?)

But us, Australians circa 2023; sophisticated, first-world, well-travelled etc, transformed?

Apparently yes.

Murdoch’s News Limited is gleefully consolidating its ability to twist our psyche into a contorted horror show.

No healing or counter will come from slavering Opposition leader Peter Dutton and his cabal whose only course is to ram the dark message home.

It’s inevitable: Blackfellas are going to face a more hostile, racist Australia than last year. What else besides?

(My fellow) Australians, don’t get sucked into feeding this growing vortex of hate.

Berlin mid-1930s images show a society going along just dandy until one morning footpaths were covered with shattered glass.

Australians are still at the Falling-In-Love stage with Fox News’ younger relative Sky News. Have we publicly considered its raison d’ etre? Why does it exist? Why that particular agro one-dimensional format? It’s new, glittering, polished, seductive, and we’re bunnies in the spotlight.

The polished art form which Fake-News-Obfuscation became during the 2016 US Trump-Clinton election was then ripe for export. Where next? Down Under?

CODA. Giving away trade secrets …

Orwell’s 1984? No, we’re Huxley’s Soma-fueled Brave New World, ‘cos you’ll never know you’ve been incarcerated nor that you’re on the stuff.’

We’re warm honey trickling through your veins. We’re here merely reminding you of what you already instinctively know. We’re a global money-spinning machine, baby, just keep dropping in the coins and we’ll keep pressing your booster buttons. We’re here for your pleasure. Relax, and enjoy. We’re The Future, baby.

We’re the voice.

(1) 1946 post-war confessional prose by the German Lutheran pastor Martin Niemöller (1892–1984). Wikipedia:

First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out –

Because I was not a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out – 

Because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out – 

Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me –

And there was no one left to speak for me.

By Andrew Klein 

I remember that as a teenager we had to sing ‘God save the Queen’. This was done at school, in cinemas and public events. Often this was linked to stories of horrific battles and wars. I was told that it was a good thing to fight for ‘Queen and country’. I really did believe as a child that somehow it was the job of young men to save the Queen and once that was done, whoever was left would save the country. It always involved saving virtuous people from complete bastards. I once asked if the Queen had been involved with less savage projects, building farms or housing estates. Apparently not, she was our Sovereign a very abstract concept that meant that ‘God had anointed’ her and placed her over me to rule me.

I looked up what ‘anointed’ meant and found that involved senior clergy and holy oil. The process of anointed was not included in the films of the coronation. Turned out that the staff had forgotten the recipe for that oil and that new supplies had to be made in a hurry.

Here I was, 12 years old and discovering that my Queen was my ruler by right of birth and a concoction of manmade oils applied by men wearing flowing dresses and that she was attributed with all kinds of magic, least of all the ability to motivate large numbers of young men much like me to go forth and kill large numbers of men just like me and of course the people of her ‘dominion’ and selectively anyone who seriously annoyed her. There were cenotaphs (empty tombs) all over the countryside attesting to what appeared to be divine will.

By the time I was 19, the dream had worn off, in the reality of life it seemed that our Sovereign had little interest in the wellbeing of ordinary folk and that pomp and circumstance, catering for tourists and occasionally foreign wars summed up her imagined role. As a figure head she became more and more irrelevant. Killing foreigners seemed to be more of a state function designed to protect assets and investments, resources. Moral high ground was always found or created to justify what in hindsight was state sanctioned murder. Of course, wars and created chaos are ways of advancing a state’s plans, that is the sad reality.

I met, on my journey through life, many who were once the enemies of my Sovereign and when times were good, we became friends. It’s funny how you can wake up, feel the rising sun and see the blue skies above and then, in an instant, you find your mind’s eye looking at a cenotaph. If we had all been honest at the start, accepting of the fact that there was no more holy oil that created rulers and that all of this was in essence an arrangement by mutual consent, maybe we could have built farms and houses instead of cenotaphs.

Dear Pauline,

I’ve read that you have been confused and outraged that the number of people laying claim to Aboriginal ancestry is increasing. If you bear with me, I think I can explain.

I’m a middle-aged white woman who was raised in a very white-seeming rural community. As far as I knew, I had minimal contact with anyone who was of Aboriginal descent. Looking back, I can remember families who were darker than the Spanish, curlier haired than the black-haired Welsh and Irish… and I now know many of these people had Aboriginal ancestors because, while they didn’t ever speak of it back then, they’ve spoken about it now, or written about it in their family trees.

But when I was growing up, if someone’s Nanna was one of the tens of thousands of brown skinned young women who’d been taken from their Aboriginal homes, raised on a mission, and sent to serve as domestic help in the homes and farms of our country, most avoided talking about it. If they were fair enough to pass as white, they never mentioned their Aboriginal family origins because they saw and heard the nasty treatment that their darker-skinned relatives got. They saw that they were less likely to be treated decently. Less likely to get a job, more likely to be bullied, bashed, arrested, or even killed. They were very quiet about their family tree, or they invented a family mythology that explained the darker features of their complexion.

It was discrimination that they wanted to avoid, and fear that fascism could return and see whole sections of society being marked out as inferior, even marked for genocide. It wouldn’t be the first time. Nobody wants that kind of horror visited on their children, or their grandchildren. They watch the news, and see the surges of fascism, racism, neo-Nazis wearing swastikas in public and throwing salutes at rallies. I don’t think their fear was unreasonable.

Sadly, they thought it best to let the heritage be lost – so much of it was destroyed already; what was the point of putting a target on your family’s back in an effort to preserve or re-claim a cultural heritage that was mere scraps of what it had once been, when the risks were so clear, and so harsh? Loving parents quietly allowing their children and grandchildren to become completely assimilated into white society is a safe, if tragic, option.

Whole generations have arisen while the elders of these nominally white families are still holding to their resolution to bring their descendants into the safety of the mainstream.

There are many in these families who know the truth. It’s a bit of an open secret, and as time passes and the old people pass away, the secret becomes a dilemma; should the children know? We’re in a safer society now. Most of the younger kids pass as white without question, and the darker skinned members of the family look well-tanned and maybe… nobody really cares about their skin colour anymore. Or nobody who matters. Only a handful of white supremacist dickheads think anything of it if their nurse, vet, retail assistant, or magistrate isn’t obviously pasty-white. Aboriginal heritage doesn’t carry the risk of bringing an automatic social downgrade anymore, especially for people who pass as white enough not to get brutally discriminated against by police, bouncers, nurses, security guards, employers, prospective in-laws etc.

This brings another dilemma for the younger generations: if they “come out” as being of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander descent, they will also “out” their family members. What if their cousins don’t want to be identified as anything but generic white people? Is it fair to claim your own cultural heritage and ancestry if doing so will expose your cousin or siblings to nasty racist discrimination?

So, Pauline, I think that the increasing number of people who identify as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander is a great reason. It’s because racist fearmongering is having a diminishing impact. Despite the best efforts of racists everywhere, Australia is smarter and more knowledgeable about race now. Not as many people are as deeply racist. Not as many people fear the resurgence of genocidal fascism in this country. Not as many people feel it’s necessary to hide their heritage.

More Australians now accept that “white looking” Aboriginal people have every right to ‘tick the box’. It’s becoming normalised that regardless of whether a person with Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander heritage has been raised on country in their ancestor’s ancient traditions, or whether they grew up in bland suburbia, the people who are claiming or re-claiming their cultural heritage should do so freely. Sure, they may get a job or a scholarship that’s been designated for Aboriginal people – but guess what? Aboriginal people now come in all shades. Some of the palest people I know (and I mean kids so white they have no visible eyebrows, and you get snow-blind just looking at them in sunlight) are first cousins to some who are quite noticeably brown and of obvious Aboriginal descent.

And for the Aboriginal people who are quite obviously of Aboriginal heritage, there’s no point in not marking the ‘of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander descent’ box. It’s not like the discrimination against your dark skin goes away if you deny your genetic heritage.

So then there’s the people who are in-between. Most of the time, nobody cares about their skin colour. They might or might not be marked as Aboriginal for the purposes of discrimination. They may or may not have been raised in households of intergenerational trauma and poverty caused by the destruction of their originating culture. Should they tick the box or not? I’d say it’s up to them.

It’s certainly not up to you or me, Pauline.

By Allan Richardson  

Planksy, a highly experienced fitter, turner and boilermaker, cracked his head on the hoist after forgetting to let go a runaway rattle gun, also severely damaging a green Mitsubishi Magna, so no real loss there. But following HIA protocol, the shop steward sent Planksy off for a mandatory 11 days.

But so as not to be a burden on society, Planksy undertook free government transition training to be an Area Controller of a solar farm conglomerate, a change from being on the tools. He declared the course quite straightforward, apart from some new terminology and, as expected in the government-sponsored RoboTrans, TMFAs. 

Because the transition course was, strictly speaking, incomplete, the course instructor subcontracted a Personal Trainer to direct exercise classes – a healthy body makes a healthy mind, said the PT, gibberishly – and as is the wont of said profession, punctuated their endless drivel with ‘Awesome!’. 

Then a well-earned counter lunch before a gruelling afternoon session, known as ‘brainstorming’. Planksy and the others had to work out what the course should involve. The participants did a pretty good job, Planksy opined after the role play. It even reminded some students of a TV series! 

* * * * * 

It’s 2030, and surprisingly, the atmospheric CO2 has barely shifted since the 2022 election, and the Labor/Greens coalition governments that followed cannot agree amongst themselves, and are both going to go it alone, like the Libs and Gnats did after their destruction at the 2025 election. But unlike the earlier dissolution of the conservative coalition, the government parties are hoping to retain sufficient relevance to maintain their parties’ registrations. But the ever-increasing Indies see that as a bridge too far, as they finalise the Private Members Bill to at last legislate the UBI. (If there are any survivors left in the climate-damaged country to take advantage of this belated necessity.)

Meanwhile, at the International Head Office of Spark Central, Planksy has a problem. ‘We’re expecting to be about 15 gigawatts short over the peak’ said Planksy. ‘Someone ring the store and stock up. Get 20 gigawatts while you’re there. Can’t discount a possible outage, with the floodwater lapping at the panels and the substations partly submerged. I’ve been trained to manage this sort of common, unanticipated disappointment. My comprehensive training course included advanced Disappointment Management modules, featuring another prominent guest lecturer, who unfortunately failed to show up for the practical. And someone said the voltage was down a bit. Better get a truckload of volts, to be sure. 

I’m not trying to be a prevenient naysayer. About 30 years ago, after I stopped working for da man, I helped a CBT facilitator to secure a State government contract to develop audio-visual Computer-Based Training modules. We developed a 60 second pilot as a sample for just over $70,000, but there were three of us. The module showed trainees how to effectively wield a broom safely, with the background wall featuring the three different types of fire-retardents. A work of art! 

And I did a TAFE course myself about 20 years ago in Damage Mitigation, known by most people as venomous snake handling. Sure, I was about 60, and all the other participants … weren’t. But you wouldn’t feed any of them, far less having them in any way responsibly for your well-being! 

If the transition to renewables hasn’t been mapped out in detail for the transition training, implementation and ongoing management of the new way, then Labor has failed. They’ve been spruiking Global Warming and Climate Change for the past decade, but they haven’t done their homework. They were excused for not announcing detailed plans before the election, just to see it squandered by relevance-deprived fifth columnists, but they’re the government now, and they can come out of hiding. Not that the LNP can even spell AGW!

The operation was successful, but the patient died.

It had been a long, hot day by the time Jake and I arrived at a far north SA town where we were to stay overnight before heading home the following morning.

Unpacked and cleaned-up we did what most blokes in an outback town do after a long, hot day: we headed for one of the town’s two pubs.

In we walked, heading straight to the bar I couldn’t help but notice that all eyes were on us.

“I wonder why everyone’s looking at us,” I whispered to Jake.

“Think about it,” he replied. “You’re a white fella walking in with a black fella.”

Jake, as you’ve guessed, is Aboriginal.

Our cool reception nonetheless disturbed me. Jake was a talented footballer and cricketer who back home was held in high esteem. Jake couldn’t walk down the street without people wanting to chat to him about last week’s game. This was the exact opposite.

Back to the story…

After a drink and a meal, we headed off to the other pub in town – a new place – where we’d planned to catch up with workmates who were also passing through.

And what a much nicer place it was… until we left to head back to our motel.

Walking through the reception area we saw a young Aboriginal girl being abused by three drunk, young white blokes. Their language and insults were disgusting.

”You’re nothing but a half-caste bitch.”

”You’re probably a slut.”

”People like you are better dead.”

And on it went. It was vile.

The girl, as you would imagine, was distressed and in tears.

Then one of the blokes saw Jake watching the proceedings, walked over, stood in his face, and shouted, “What the fuck are you staring at, ya boong?”

I squeezed in between them, stared at the other bloke, and came out with something passive, “Hey, lay off him. How about we get out of here and go our seperate ways?”

And off we all went. Jake and I headed to our motel while I assume the aggressors went to the other pub to continue with more mayhem.

At 2am I was awoken by a knock on my door. It was Jake. He was crying.

”What the hell’s the matter?” I asked.

His answer floored me: “I’ve never had a white fella stick up for me before.”

(Damn near brought a tear to my eye, too.)

To me, it was just an incident. To Jake it was something stronger. My one small action seemed to help to right a lifetime of wrongs.

So I’m voting Yes for Jake. And the tens of thousands like him.

By Jane Salmon  

Does it require a refugee being passed like a parcel from well-meaning ally to ally in a relay of 70 towns? No. 

That is way too extreme. 

Many asylum seekers have bravely walked before: to mixed effect. It is however possible for refugees to campaign for a better visa from their precarious Aussie homes (such as they are). 

Recent precedents offer hope to some Tamils who left Sri Lanka 12-16 years ago. The in-country conditions of the time are now mapped out for Tamils applying to Immigration. 

If you are not Tamil, you can still assemble the evidence of conditions in your country at the time you were forced to leave and submit it with your application.

Refugees cannot all access mainstream multi-media campaigns. Refugee sector resources are not there. Moreover, your privacy is precious.

Right now, it seems that “getting a go” does require each refugee to put in an application for Ministerial Intervention through their lawyers … even if things have not gone well in the courts or by negotiation with Immigration before. 

Will you buy new hiking boots plus podiatry … or a lawyer? It’ll cost at least $250 for either. I promise you, you’ll need a reputable lawyer, so start there.

Hard-pressed refugees don’t need to abandon their responsibilities at home to obtain a future. Keeping families safe is vital.

Skip the boots. Get someone to help write up your story and assemble home country data.

Perhaps you feel up to engaging with your local community (in the same way some high-profile families have) to become better known. 

Bona fides & connection or trust do help speak to your character. 

As we all know, volunteering is a great way to build up language skills, recover mental health and learn the written and unwritten rules of a place. But also protect your own interests; give of yourself only when you can. 

Beware the patronisation of Anglo allies. We all have egos and agendas. We are all scrambling to show off what we think we can do. Being pulled in many different directions may not be what you need. Try to define your situation yourself.

But have courage. There are signs that greater fairness is possible. 

We see you. Tell activists what you need. We are here to be educated and to help. 

Let’s give uncertainty “the boot”.  Get those applications and petitions in. We need a register of applications made.

Otherwise, “These Boots Are Made For Walking” and there will be a fluoro-clad, backpack-laden throng of all ages and stages bootscooting outside APH until everyone has permanency. Those optics could be pretty overwhelming for any government.

 

Graphic by Aja Bon

By Jane Salmon

Eight generations ago, my dirt-poor Celtic ancestors were colonisers. They logged trees, eroded the land. They brutalised animals. They farmed, fought, bred and built for themselves.

They probably also abused Aboriginal women or stockmen and participated in genocide. The evidence is well hidden but pops up in hints such as Aboriginal families bearing my surname across the rural area where my great-grandfather worked.

This has been minimised by subsequent generations determined to steep their identity in middle-class suburban “niceness”. They claimed to be “self-made” bankers. Land ownership has been an obsession for all of them.

The same Aborigines who were told by my forebears that they didn’t polish the silver properly could not have any level of dominion over their own lives. They were only given the vote in 1967.

“Money spent on them was wasted,” said the same patriarchs who stole their wages.

Perhaps white women should identify with Aborigines more. Yet Aborigines have always been welcoming to refugees, hospitable to me. The Aboriginal passports sent to refugees on Manus are a case in point.

So why should new migrants care? Because erasure and homogenisation keeps happening. You may have come here to escape discrimination, but you also want to protect your own precious cultural heritage.

And where was the equality Jacinta Price speaks of, that day in 1993 when we saw an Aboriginal woman turned away from a half empty church-run women’s refuge in Eastern Sydney? White hookers who had actually injected drugs in the waiting room of Childrens’ Court (while awaiting custodial hearings) were treated better.

Where is the equality when the nearest petrol station is many hours drive from where you were raised and where a handful of green beans costs $20?

The level playing field does not exist. The LNP are the first to claim every advantage or opportunity for themselves before kicking the ladder away. They socialise their losses while privatising profit. Then they whine about red tape … when not tangling lowlier Australians up in it.

I will be voting Yes proudly. Affirmative action of any kind is not handicapping the rest of us. It is redress.

And no matter how hard or tedious the dialogue is, it is honorable and necessary.