As the now former Royal Spanish Football Federation President Luis Rubiales discovered recently, no means no. Kissing someone on the lips without consent has consequences – and rightly so. There were various arguments put up why the non-consensual action was permissible before the reality hit that the action was completely inappropriate and even if Rubiales thought the gesture harmless, it wasn’t. His ‘resignation’ is pretty fair and reasonable in the scheme of things. We teach our youth that ‘no means no’ for a reason. There are no exemptions or excuses such as it was harmless or it didn’t mean anything to reduce its severity or ‘explain it away’.
There seems to be a growing list of those opposed to the Voice to Parliament who are claiming they are supporting the Opposition Leader Dutton ‘no’, Warren Mundine’s ‘no’ or the Senator Price ‘no’. In reality, it doesn’t make a scrap of difference – no mean no. Regardless of which ‘no’ you favour, no means nothing happens to alleviate the centuries of pain, torment and angst caused to the First Nations of this country by those who have immigrated or lived here since 1788.
The ABC recently published an article online that discussed what would happen to the Constitution if the referendum is agreed to. First of all, the Constitution covers:
- the structure and law-making powers of federal parliament
- how the federal and state parliaments share power and expenditures
- the roles of the executive government and the High Court of Australia
- frequency of elections
The constitution is a legally binding document and has a special status – it can only be changed through a referendum and it overrides all other laws.
Even a law passed by federal parliament is invalid if it contradicts the constitution.
Those that believe their actions are legitimised because of the ‘bill of rights’ should be concerned because:
Unlike the constitutions of some other countries, Australia’s does not include a list of the rights of citizens or a “bill of rights”. [There is also no legislated ‘bill of rights’ in Australia.]
These rights are, instead, protected by common law (made by the courts) and statute law (made by parliament).
Also, the Australian Constitution didn’t include a reference to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people until 1967, when recognition was included as a result of a referendum.
So what are the changes? According to the ABC:
The federal government is proposing to add a ninth chapter to the document.
It comes in response to the Uluru Statement from the Heart – which was signed by more than 250 Indigenous representatives and calls for constitutional recognition through a Voice.
The proposed chapter would come after Chapter 8 and just before the Schedule and Notes.
The new chapter contains four paragraphs and are typed out for you to read and consider if you click here.
Like in a lot of discussions, there is considerable nuance that separates the views of different members of the community. Dutton’s ‘no’ seems to be predicated on blanket opposition to anything proposed by the Australian Government rather than any ideological concerns with the Voice. He had a number of meeting s during the planning stages with supporters to attempt to come to an agreed common ground. Dutton also has a history of not understanding our history with First Nations People, having walked out on PM Rudd’s Apology to the Stolen Generation in 2008 (although he did apologise for that 15 years later when politically expedient to do so).
Senator Price’s ‘no’ seems to be because she believes that the Voice effectively doesn’t go far enough. She may be correct, however the Voice referendum is the product of the Uluru ‘Statement from the Heart’ where 250 representatives of First Nations Peoples came together and developed a consensus view of a way forward. As each of these people would have brought different views and objectivity to the discussion, the result is a distillation of the views and almost certainly not the view of one or two individuals. Senator Price has every opportunity in the Parliament to influence the makeup and process of the Voice – should it be agreed to, but she will have to compromise as she is one of over 200 Parliamentarians that consider federal legislation.
Warren Mundine’s ‘no’ seems to be less ‘hard line’ that Price’s, however he still argues a treaty between First Nations people and the Australian Government is required. Mundine’s list of requirements also includes changing the date of Australia Day to a day less emotive for all of us.
The obvious question is if a representative group of First Nations people determined that the current process is preferable, would those opposing it be acting any different if Australia was voting on a proposed treaty that didn’t cover off on their individual requirements? Realistically – probably not. In any society not everyone is going to get everything they want – ever.
When you’re watching your favourite football code finals over the next week or so, just remember that no one has got on the field because they stood back and covered off on all the risks and uncertainties. The players, coaches and team staff are there because they took calculated chances. The Uluru ‘Statement from the Heart’ participants have taken the calculated risk and hope to achieve a positive outcome.
They developed a solution that was acceptable to the majority at the forum and presented to all Australians for consideration. It may not have been the best, almost certainly could have been worse, but it is a consensus and a pathway to finding a solution to a long running sore that is holding back Australia. Regardless, there seems to be people who are telling us to disregard the Uluru ‘Statement from the Heart’ because it doesn’t represent their world view of the ideal process for recognition and treaty. It’s a bit like the 3-year-old child throwing a tantrum because they aren’t getting their own way.
Voting ‘no’ is essentially a vote to not change anything because there might be something we didn’t think about that happens down the track. As countless people, including the former Spanish Football President have found out to their cost – no means no – there are no excuses. Your ‘no’ vote is the same as Dutton’s, Price’s or Mundine’s – regardless of how you try to justify it to yourself or others.
And if you don’t know – do the research. Here’s a link to help you start.
[textblock style=”7″]
Like what we do at The AIMN?
You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.
Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!
Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.
You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969
[/textblock]
Whoever made this clearly had Dutton in mind:
thank you, absolutely.
I am fearful that the NO is going to triumph simply because too many people are unwillingly, or cruelly, ignorant.
For Senator Price to say colonisation did no harm – OMG – it’s to be hoped she suffers for that at the next election.
I read a piece the other day about Aboriginal War Veterans who weren’t entitled to the War Service Loans deal for
cheap housing – because they weren’t even counted as people !!! NO HARM !!! The mind boggles.
YES YES YES YES
Both campaigns make their favourite points repeatedly, so I guess I can do the same. Citing the Rubiales case is not helpful. The lady only said it was non-consensual (therefore “no”) after being kissed on the cheek(s) by a line of dignatories. How was that kissing “consensual” (therefore “yes”)? The article asserts that: Regardless of which ‘no’ you favour, no means nothing happens to alleviate the centuries of pain, torment and angst caused to the First Nations of this country by those who have immigrated or lived here since 1788″. Given the way politics and governments work, how credible is the assertion: Regardless of which ‘yes’ you favour, yes means nothing happens to alleviate the centuries of pain, torment and angst caused to the First Nations of this country by those who have immigrated or lived here since 1788″? Voting “yes” offers no guarantees of alleviation in practice — just hopes that the process will work. There is some probability that “neither” will force a rethink — one which might indeed be forced by the disappointments associated with a “no” win — or of a “yes” win. In a context in which each campaign aspires to thrashing and trashing the other, a rethink could offer a pathway beyond symbols and tokenistic implemenation.
Keitha,
You forgot to mention the main sleaze right wing media, with particular emphasis on that lurker at the threshold Rotting Rupert. They can take a fairly hefty proportion of the blame if the referendum falls though next month.
Anthony:
Given the poliicies that have caused the current appalling situation with regard to Fiirst Nations people, is more logical to assume that maintaining the status quo will not result in an improvement than that trying something different – something in accordance with the wishes of the majority of those people – will not help.
We know the current method of delivery of services doesn’t work. It’s time to look at different ways of doing things. Past time, in fact.
@Anthony Judge – the difference is that kissing on the cheek is a common European custom – kissing someone on the lips without permission isn’t. Thats what he got done for. It wasn’t the Australian media that got upset about it – it was the Spanish media. Clearly his actions were inappropriate to the current community standards in Spain.
Voting yes gives us a chance that something will change – voting no doesn’t. Once it’s in the constitution the Voice mechanism has to be created. Hopefully it will be well and truly embedded before the Coalition gets back into power.
Then its up to the representatives of the Voice to do the work to bring change. The current system of telling people how we will help them hasn’t worked for over 200 years – when would you say enough is enough?
Having lived in continental Europe for many years, I am very familiar with cheek kissing and the degree to which it is “common”. My experience is that it is increasingly inappropriate to assume that what is held to be common is necessarily consensual and appreciated. Typically it involves a subtle process of negotiation — absent from the football lineup. Others in that lineup could protest the assumption that it was consensual and how advantage was taken where it was not desired. With respect to the treatment of First Nations peoples in Australia, many practices have been “common” and are now rightfully called into question.
On my argument with respect to the weak capacity of government and politics to move beyond tokenism, a splendid example is offered by the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals for achievement by 2030. A UN document on Indigenous Peoples and the 2030 Agenda (https://shorturl.at/celFQ) specifically identifies tasks which could be understood to feature in the Voice initiative. In the current review of that Agenda, at its halfway mark, the Secretary-General has noted that at the global level, averaging across countries, not a single SDG is currently projected to be met by 2030. Progress on many is very poor. A case for rethinking hopeful iconic proposals?
Hear hear, 2353NM.
If some rogue sleepwalking part of me voted NO some woke part of me could not live on at any level of wakefulness.
The shame would simply overwhelm & one more zombie would be added to the denizens roaming Dante’s hell, haunting and wailing and gnashing etc in miserable lousy regret for all eternity.
Warren Mundine has not only supported Treaty but has spoken of dozens of treaties throughout the land, potentially with every aboriginal clan and language group – Mundine insists that one group cannot, on matters of treaty, speak on behalf of other clan groups.
If you reckon that the Voice has been a divisive campaign, wait until the treaty negotiations get underway.
As noted above, voting No on the Voice means that nothing will change and it will suggest that the Australian people accept the status quo : we owe it to ourselves to vote Yes and at least give change a chance.
WISHFUL THINKING
I WISH :-
That the standard of politicians would rise to the level which sees all AUSTRALIANS old, new and people with ears looking like a taxi coming around the corner with the doors open, given a FAIR GO. I have no time for politicians who rant and rave about topics they have no idea of, or who have an agenda to gain the Prime Minister role.
Just once, can we please have a government who will do the best job for all Australians? And I do mean all Australians. A yes vote is a vote for a fair go.
Remember once john howard made sounds like introducing mateship into the constitution? A few years later he introduced Work Choices? He got the DCM note(don’t come Monday) from his howard’s battlers! So don’t waste a bloody breath on voting No, because nothing else follows. Let’s all get behind Albo and vote YES for a FAIR GO for all.