by GABRIËL MOENS – IT WOULD be an exaggeration to describe the Voice referendum as Australia’s nadir moment.
But Australia has certainly avoided – at least for now – becoming a country divided by race.
- The relentless pressure for special rights for Indigenous Australians will undoubtedly continue.
- Political Parties should be blamed for giving in to the politics of victimisation and divisiveness.
- Replacing individual rights with group rights must come to an end.
Indeed, if the “Yes” vote had prevailed, a potentially divisive and conflict-ridden organisation would have been permanently enshrined in the Constitution, giving some Australians a privileged position in this country.
In the end, the magnificent campaign run by the No camp, especially by Shadow Indigenous Affairs Minister, Senator Jacinta Price, and the coherent message communicated to the electorate prevailed.
SPECIAL
The message reminded electors that the success of the Yes campaign would result in the allocation of special rights to some people and not others.
Indeed, a successful Yes vote would not have contributed to reconciliation, but instead would have resulted in incessant demands for more benefits, reparations, land rights, treaties and truth-telling commissions, and more.
It would also have overturned the noble aspirations and achievements of the 1967 referendum, which is credited with promoting a “colour-blind” society.
However, although 60.6 per cent of the electorate voted No, it is important not to be euphoric because it is a pyrrhic victory.
This is because the relentless pressure for special rights for Indigenous Australians will undoubtedly continue and may even accelerate.
The architects of this disastrous endeavour will continue to push for other benefits.
In this context, our political Parties should be blamed for giving in to the politics of victimisation and divisiveness.
RED TAPE
Even some factions of the Opposition promised that they might want to conduct a second referendum, involving the establishment of regional voices via Parliament, but would nevertheless add an extra layer of red tape to the government.
Such promises merely continue the debate about the propriety of replacing individual rights with group rights.
So, while the defeat of the Yes campaign is obviously very pleasing, it is not something that should be celebrated wildly.
It is also most unfortunate that the Voice campaign failed to live up to the requirements of a civilised discussion.
INVECTIVE
Indeed, the mud-throwing and use of invectives, especially by some proponents of the Voice proposal, have further aggravated the division that the proposal generated in the first place.
The Voice debate has revealed just how far along freedom of speech in this country has been eroded.
The immediate task of Australia, in this post-Voice world, is to learn from the past and get on with the job of making a better future for those who now live in Australia and for those who follow, without excoriating those who believe in the implementation of the principle of political equality.PC
Jacinta Price and her Mum Bess have it right! They have joined in being one people as Australians and also the right to be who and what they like under our constitution! Jacinta and others have become Ministers in our parliament as is their right as Australians! Explaining they also can represent other Australians of Aboriginal lineage who also have the same rights! Imagine a Parliament consisting of a Majority of Aboriginal descendants 🙂 Stronger than any paid for voice! All we need do is get rid of the freeloaders currently in our Parliaments! Any suggestions 🙂 Labor almost entirely and Greens would be a fine start! Even some of the woke Libs etc 🙂
Quote:
“In September last year the Albanese government advertised for applicants for a new position in the bureaucracy, an Ambassador for First Nations People. The ambassador would be employed by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade to work across a number of government agencies and departments. The brief would be to
engage directly on how Australia’s international engagement contributes to Indigenous community and economic development, supports First Nations businesses and exporters, delivers practical action on climate change, builds connections across the Indo-Pacific region and supports Indigenous rights around the world.
The position would mean that Australia would for the first time have “dedicated indigenous representation in our international engagement”. In other words, from the earliest days after its election victory, the Albanese government decided that the scope of its commitment to the Aboriginal Voice would extend well beyond domestic issues.
In March this year, Indigenous Affairs Minister Linda Burney announced that Justin Mohamed had got the job. The published documents gave only short accounts of the areas in which Mohamed would concentrate but it was clear he was expected to focus on issues of much more significance than overseas trade in indigenous art and artefacts or tourist attractions.”
Funding has already been allocated and partly spent on a Makarratta Commission and this was organised by the Albanese Government before the Referendum and misleading campaign. Yesterday the Prime Minister repeated that the Makarratta Commission will continue;
Uluru Statement (in part)
We call for the establishment of a First Nations Voice enshrined in the Constitution.
Makarrata is the culmination of our agenda: the coming together after a struggle. It captures our aspirations for a fair and truthful relationship with the people of Australia and a better future for our children based on justice and self-determination.
We seek a Makarrata Commission to supervise a process of agreement-making between governments and First Nations and truth-telling about our history.
In 1967 we were counted, in 2017 we seek to be heard. We leave base camp and start our trek across this vast country. We invite you to walk with us in a movement of the Australian people for a better future.
Note that Makarratta is the culture and language of Arnhem Land people/mobs.
The monarch is selected on breeding and bloodline.
Until the filth of monarchy is scrubbed from our shores, our constitution remains deeply racist.
Constitutional Monarchy, Commonwealth of Australia, Federation of States.
Constitutional Laws rule here.
There is no Head of State in the Constitution.
Quote:
By Sir David Smith who was Official Secretary to five Governors-General from 1973 to 1990. He was an appointed delegate to the 1998 Constitutional Convention; and a member of the No Case Committee for the 1999 Constitutional Referendum. Since his retirement he has held appointments as a Visiting Fellow in the Political Science Programme of the Research School of Social Sciences at The Australian National University, and a Visiting Fellow in the Faculty of Law at The Australian National University. He is currently a Visiting Scholar in the Faculty of Law at The Australian National University. The Queen plays an important role under our system of government as Queen of Australia, as does the Governor-General as the Queen’s representative and as the embodiment of the Crown in Australia. These separate and distinct roles are carried out without detriment to our sovereignty as a nation, and without detriment to our independence. Republicans argue that the Queen is our Head of State and that the republic would give us an Australian as Head of State. Constitutional monarchists argue that the Queen is the Sovereign and that the Governor-General is the Head of State. The Australian Constitution does not contain the words “Head of State”, nor was the term discussed during the constitutional debates which resulted in the drafting of the Constitution and its subsequent approval by the Australian people. In the absence of a specific provision in the Constitution, we need to see who actually performs the duties of Head of State in order to determine who is the Head of State. As discussed in this paper, these duties are performed by the Governor-General, and the Sovereign’s only constitutional duty is to approve the Prime Minister’s recommendation of the person to be appointed Governor-General …..
Playing victim? your language is despicable. It seems the majority of Australians do not agree. Maybe you should migrate to more militant Communist countries like: to Russia? China? Iran? Oz voted NO to racism and apartheid.”Racism is decisions based on race”. Simple!
“The monarch is selected on breeding and bloodline.”
That’s why you are not the monarch – you have no breeding.