After many months of bitter debate about the Voice, an address to the National Press Club this week reminds us that we are back at a point where it seems that, no matter what the truth may be, we will not let it lead to any change, writes Laura Tingle.
Thank you for replying so thoughtfully. This has explained it better to me than anyone else has (from both sides).
I think part of the communication problem is how wishy-washy the vote is. Without the historical context the importance of the vote gets completely missed. I’ve heard so many people wave their hands and say “representation”, “constitution”, etc., but no one is able to define anything. Your comment makes it clear to me that it’s not so much about the affirmative action, but explicitly avoiding the failures of the past.
Side note: it’s crazy to think we don’t even have a constitutional freedom of speech
You’re welcome. I have been reflecting on the campaign recently and I believe the point about consitutional recognition probably hasn’t been made as clearly as it should have been. The debate has become really bogged down in theoretical outcomes of the Voice advisory body, giving rise to a lot of fearmongering and misinformation, but regardless of how that turns out there is still the symbolic recognition component which is something that has decades of widespread support from Indigenous Australians and both sides of politics. Like you, I was also sceptical of what a Yes vote would achieve early on, but the more I have learned about the history of this entire process the more convinced I have become that it is the only rational choice I can make at this referendum.
Couldn’t agree more. In general, I think left leaning people make the mistake of overly debating the points that right leaning people make and this creates a lot of confusion and muddies the waters to the detriment of the left leaning. I’ll explain why. These are generalities and cut both ways too.
A lot of arguments aren’t made in good faith. Trying to rationally and logically explain/debate something when the other side isn’t making decisions rationally or logically usually doesn’t work. (explaining why fear mongering isn’t valid)
Debating a bad idea directs too much focus towards that idea and makes it harder for good ideas to be heard. This leads people to missing the point or not seeing the bigger picture. (arguing that there are already indigenous people in parliament)
Recognising that some ideas are based on emotional opinions can lead to trying to directly counter that in an emotionally adversarial way. (if you don’t support me you’re racist!)
I think making these mistakes can too easily turn discussions into identity clashes and further entrenches pre held ideas. Obviously you should respond to concerns and as long as the discussion stays civilised there’s no problem. Unfortunately not many people are able to discuss different ideas without taking it personally.
I’m grateful to everyone here that has done their best to express their opinions without resorting to personal comments.
In terms of general discourse I’d say that’s certainly true. The official Yes campaign has actually done a really good job avoiding those pitfalls, though. Everyone involved has showed an insane level of restraint (perhaps too much at times) given the absolute barrage of lies and blatantly bad faith misdirection they have been exposed to for months.
And I will add that I don’t see this as left versus right in the way that other social policy debates are. Constitutional recognition for Indigenous Australians has historically had conservative support and in this referendum you can find many examples of right leaning people who support the Yes campaign. Chris Kenny on Sky News has been using his program to campaign for a Yes vote for months, as an example. Part of the reason it has taken so long to get a referendum on this is because great efforts were taken to establish a model that would receive bipartisan support.
In the modern era, I think politics is often less about left versus right and more about education versus misinformation. And that has certainly been the story of this referendum.
Freedom of speech the way our American friends go on about it is implied in our constitution as general freedom. We don’t explicitly have a clause that says you have a right to walk along the beach in PJs or jeans (or even both!). Yet, this activity is perfectly legal.
For some reason, they’ve gone and made a constitutional amendment specifically for this freedom. I’m sure they had a good reason for that. That doesn’t mean we don’t also have this freedom.
It is a lot different actually having it explicitly in the constitution for all the same reasons you would argue for a yes vote in the upcoming referendum. You only have to look back a couple of years to find a time where your example wasn’t legal due to lockdowns.
I don’t live in a part of Australia that had those restrictions on movement. We never had lockdowns in Western Australia like they experienced in the Eastern States.
But even then, the restrictions those places had were temporary in response to a state of emergency and not a change in our wider freedoms.
I’m not arguing the validity of temporary lockdown restrictions due to public health emergencies. I largely agree with the measures. I’m just pointing out your example of “well our constitution doesn’t explicitly protect this, yet we can all still do it” is really not the same thing as having explicit protections of a freedom.
It’s more applicable with freedom of speech. Australia does not have explicit constitutionally protected freedom of speech. Which is never important until all of a sudden it is!
Look at what happened to the ABC a few years back when the AFP raided them after reporting on the activities of some members of our military.
Military activities are a completely different thing. Just ask Julian Assange what the US military thinks about exercising freedom of speech in the context of military actions.