Teary signing off from last shift at my #VoiceToParliament pre-polling booth, the Margaret Whitlam Centre. It's quiet over my shoulder at the moment, but the booth's been busy today and overwhelmingly positive. We can do this, #Australia. #VoteYes! ❤️ #VoteYesAustralia
I didn't invade & colonise Australia 230 years ago. I didn't kill Indigenous landowners who had lived on & cared for these lands for at least 65,000 years. But when I #VoteYes, I will be part of today's Australia. One that wants to listen & repair harm & recognise what's true.
{please boost}
There's a lot of pre-polling talk that Australia will vote "No" in the Voice referendum. That makes me worry about what could happen, and about how it will shape how our nearly-entirely-white government will talk with Indigenous people in the future. If Australia votes "No", it will be a wasted opportunity.
What are we really voting on? The screenshot here is from the AEC website, and it shows the full wording change: https://www.aec.gov.au/referendums/learn/the-question.html
The photo next to it is a close-up of the ballot paper with very simplified wording.
Look at the ballot paper. It's worded in a vague way. There's no mention of the actual changes to the constitution. They could have done that, but they chose not to. This was no accident. This was a deliberate decision because Dutton wanted to create uncertainty in people's minds.
You may recall that Albo and Dutton did a lot of haggling over the wording of the changes to the constitution and possibly the voting form. It was not a requirement that Dutton got such a strong say in things; it was more of a conciliatory move by Albo who was new to being PM at the time and wanted to appear even-handed but ended-up being a walkover. It was a mistake to give Dutton that latitude, and Albo should have known him well enough to see he wasn't arguing in good faith.
For the last few months, Dutton's vague and suggestive referendum messaging to the public has been a Rorschach Test where voters can squint at Dutton's verbal inkblot and see their own uncertainties, fears, phobias, resentments, prejudices, and racism, and thus lead themself to the conclusion to vote "No".
It’s all part of a global playbook from the U.S.-based #AtlasNetwork to protect the profits of #FossilFuel and #mining companies, argues a Sydney researcher.
By Geoff Dembicki
Oct 10, 2023
"A campaign to deny #IndigenousPeoples a voice in Australia’s national Parliament is using tactics similar to an earlier conservative legal battle against #FirstNations communities in Canada, a new research paper argues.
"That’s no coincidence, according to the paper’s author Jeremy Walker, because think tanks linked to these efforts in Canada and Australia belong to a secretive U.S. organization called the Atlas Network that’s received support from #oil, #gas and #coal companies and operates in nearly 100 countries.
"'The coordinated opposition to Indigenous constitutional recognition by the Australian arm of the Atlas Network we can assume is motivated by the same intentions underlying the permanent Atlas campaign against climate policy [globally],' writes Walker, a senior lecturer in social and political sciences at the University of Technology Sydney in Australia.
'That is, to minimise the possibility of democratic government challenging the ever-expanding frontier of fossil fuel extraction,' he argues, a charge one conservative Australian advocacy group strongly denies.
"On #October14, Australians will vote 'yes' or 'no' in a referendum that would amend the country’s constitution to create a permanent First Nations advisory body in the country’s Parliament.
"'Most Australians understand that generations of Australian government policy have failed First Nations peoples,' UNSW Sydney professor Megan Davis, who is a Cobble Cobble woman of the Barunggam Nation, told the Guardian earlier this year. 'The voice referendum is an opportunity for all of us Australians to make the difference.'
"Earlier this spring national support for the 'yes' position was over 60 percent but by September it had collapsed to 40 percent or less, polling cited by Walker suggests.
Walker attributes that largely to the efforts of a #conservative advocacy group called #Advance, which has led an extensive media campaign urging people to vote 'No' in the referendum. 'The ‘Indigenous Voice to Parliament’ will wreck our Constitution, rewire our democracy, and divide Australians by race. It’s divisive, it’s dangerous, it’s expensive and it’s not fair,' reads a website created by Advance.
The campaign’s main spokespeople are Indigenous – Warren Mundine and Australian Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price – and they have been interviewed frequently in the country’s mainstream media. Yet few Australians are aware of Mundine and Price’s connections to the wider Atlas Network, Walker argues.
"Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price is another ‘No’ campaigner with Atlas ties.
Both 'No' campaigners are long-time contributors to the Centre for Independent Studies, Walker’s paper explains, a conservative think tank founded in 1976 with grants from resource extraction companies such as #Shell, #RioTinto and #WesternMiningCorporation.
The Center for Independent Studies is in turn a member of the Atlas Network, a Virginia-based organization whose members include hundreds of conservative think tanks and organizations across the world, many of whom are active spreaders of doubt about the severity of climate change.
One of the Center for Independent Studies’ first board members, Maurice Newman, was revealed as an early backer of the organization Advance in 2018, which is now leading efforts against the Indigenous referendum. And Advance’s lead 'No' campaigner Mundine is chairman of LibertyWorks, a conservative group also associated with the Atlas Network.
"Despite these connections, Advance strongly disputes any association with Atlas.
'We have never heard of the Atlas Network and absolutely reject the incorrect assertion we have any connection to them at all,' a spokesperson for Advance wrote in an email to DeSmog. 'The idea that our referendum campaign is being conducted or coordinated by ‘fossil-fuel corporations and their allies’ or the Atlas Network is wrong and frankly bizarre.'
"In addition to Australia and dozens of other countries, several Atlas Network members are based in Canada. And they too have led efforts attempting to undermine greater recognition of Indigenous legal rights. An Ottawa-based think tank and Atlas member called the MacDonald Laurier Institute spent years advocating against Canada’s federal government adopting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, otherwise known as #UNDRIP.
"That’s because UNDRIP contained clauses that could potentially give Canada’s Indigenous peoples greater say over fossil fuel and natural resource projects on their territories. 'It is difficult to overstate the legal and economic disruptions that may have followed from such a step,' read documents produced by the Atlas Network and the Macdonald Laurier Institute that were obtained by DeSmog.
"The think tank has actively cultivated #ProIndustry Indigenous representatives as the face of its advocacy efforts on this and other natural resources issues in order to provide 'a shield against opponents that is hard to undermine,' according to the documents. First Nations critics refer to such strategies as '#redwashing.'
"'It’s a way of [industry] making their claims about their relationship with Indigenous peoples sound better than they actually are in reality,' Kris Statnyk, a #Gwichin First Nation lawyer based in British Columbia, told Drilled this summer.
"Walker sees a parallel between those tactics, and the current effort in Australia to prevent First Nations from having greater representation in that country’s Parliament. The 'No' campaign led by the group Advance prominently features Indigenous Australians arguing against the referendum, despite polling commissioned by advocates suggesting that 80 percent or more of First Nations people in the country support the initiative.
Like in Canada, some Australian fossil fuel and mining projects are located in or adjacent to the traditional territories of First Nations.
"Several Indigenous communities have led legal challenges against gas and coal expansion. 'Should an Indigenous Voice be constitutionalised in Parliament, First Nations representatives might raise objections to such fossil and mining projects,' Walker writes.
He argues that this is what’s at stake in the upcoming referendum vote.
"'The effort to deny Aboriginal Australians a voice is part of a global playbook from Atlas and its allies,' Walker told DeSmog. 'They’ve also used it in Canada and likely anywhere else that greater Indigenous rights could impact fossil fuel and mining profits.'"
As we head towards referendum day, it's interesting and enlightening to read about how Norway has successfully incorporated a voice for their indigenous peoples into their governmental structure.
It can be done. It costs us little but has the potential to do so much good.
#VoteYes Australia. It is the right time to recognise our indigenous peoples in our constitution and to give them a voice in matters that pertain to their lives.
Don't be confused about the proposed change to the constitution. It's how we can acknowledge our First Peoples in the document that defines us. The Voice is an advisory body. It doesn't make legislation. It gives our citizens the opportunity to provide input on issues that directly impact them.
Think about your vote. It's an opportunity for our country to move forward.
Don't vote based on ignorance, and don't overthink it. It should be an easy decision.
The Australian jurisdiction with the highest proportion of Indigenous people is the Northern Territory.
Coincidentally, the NT doesn't count toward the "majority of states" part of the double majority required for a #referendum to pass.
To me, this does not seem fair, and seems like another example of White Australia imposing its will on First Nations people.
This is just one of the many reasons that I'll be voting #yes on Saturday. #Voice does not affect me. Voice will probably not affect me as a white middle aged male. Hell, it may well be completely ineffective. But I don't want to be spending the next 25+ years listening to conservatives yelling "Australians don't want indigenous representation" and "Australians already dealt with that issue" at every opportunity like they currently do with the republic movement.
Getting better experienced-based advice from local, rural & remote Indigenous Australians will reduce waste from programs that were well-intentioned, but lacking in expertise. That's why I will #VoteYes on Saturday. #VoteYesAustralia#auspol
{please boost}
A #VoiceToParliament can't bring about reparation payments. That needs MP support & legislation, Federally or locally (like Victoria has already done-and the sky has not fallen).
But a Voice can advise. That's all. #VoteYes#Referendum2023
Ray Martin on the #VoteNo campaign's slogan "If you don't know vote no":
"What that excellent slogan is saying, is if you’re a dinosaur or a d***khead who can’t be bothered reading, then vote No."
The #ABC's Michael Rowland sides with the dickheads.
@mark_melbin Hard to tell whether he's a dickhead himself, or just doing yet more of the ongoing despicable #ABC#bothsidesing bullshit. Either way, i really do wish journos would stop doing this divisive crap.
This might be unfair, & is a bit of book judging by cover, but...
PVO's body language really pisses me off, bigly muchly. Every time i see someone adopt that pose of leaning right back with arms spread on a couch, during a formal discussion, i equate it with arrogance & pomposity. It doesn't help, i acknowledge, that i already thing he's a bit of a bastard anyway, based on his history. 🤢
Simplifying the pathway to advising Parliament is one part of the #VoiceToParliament.
The other is overdue recognition of the Indigenous people living in Australia when Europeans colonised it, declaring it empty.
Both are small steps but very important for us to grow as a Nation. #VoteYes#auspol
This has a lot more nuance than most folks are comfortable taking onboard and people’s motivations, one way or another, are often little to do with material improvement or empowerment.
Vote however you see fit but look a little deeper than Farnham feels, network floundering and cashed up campaign agendas.
"Some among the “No” camp argue the Voice will have unintended consequences. They claim it will forever change the Constitution, a document as fragile and unforgiving as tissue paper.
This offers an illusion of dignity. It says the “No” voter carries with him the wisdom of the law. He is defending a special, complicated part of the country, a sheaf of prudence on which we wrote down the binding truths about ourselves.
Of course, in reality he is defending only himself. He is defending a mean-spirited conception of Australia. When he argues, all he is arguing is that he is better than the people who lived here before him, whose country was taken. He is arguing that he won and he doesn’t see the point of talking any further."
You really would have to have the mental agility of a tardigrade to hear the “If you don’t know, vote no” slogan and be satisfied with that. It seems I’m not alone with that view judging by this bill poster I spotted on Pitt Street today. #Sydney#TheVoice#VoteYes