.

This is what the eminent Australian historian, Henry Reynolds, has to say :

.

« The UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) was introduced by the Australian Indigenous leader Les Maelzer who, at the time, was Chair of the Global Indigenous Caucus. One hundred and fifty countries supported the Declaration. The Rudd Government signed the declaration in 2009. Australia has, therefore, been committed to the principles for fourteen years. It has had bi-partisan support. The Law Council of Australia observed in 2019 that the Declaration was, “the authoritative international standard informing the way governments across the globe should engage with and protect the rights of indigenous people”.

The resounding defeat of the referendum totally undermines Australia’s hope to present itself to the world as a progressive nation in step with international law and global opinion. Australia was recently asked by U.N agencies to report on what steps had been taken “to provide for constitutional recognition of indigenous peoples”. In reply, DFAT reported that Australia was committed to ensuring that our First Nation’s people were “heard, respected and empowered” and that their voices would “have a say in the decisions that affect them”.

We should not be surprised if as a consequence of the defeat of the referendum the world judges us harshly, accusing us of bad faith and hypocrisy. The extraordinary fact that our international commitments were rarely, if ever mentioned, in such a consequential debate suggests, at least, that the face that we turn to the world is very different from the one we present to the domestic electorate, and that international documents we sign up to are kept from sight rather than explained and publicised. »

Here is the article :

http://johnmenadue.com/what-happened-to-indigenous-rights-the-world-will-judge-australia-harshly/

.

.

Dear Indyvidual,

.

You wrote :

« Again, nothing about human responsibilities ! »
.

The current discussion is in relation to the Voice referendum which, as you know, concerned : “A Proposed Law: to alter the Constitution to recognise the First Peoples of Australia by establishing an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice”.

The purpose of the Voice was to allow our indigenous peoples to express their views on laws concerning them prior to the promulgation of any such laws by our state and federal parliaments.

It goes without saying that if the referendum had succeeded, the state and federal executives and legislative authorities together with the state and federal indigenous representatives would have been responsible for putting that into practise – if those are the “human responsibilities” you are referring to.

If, however, your concern relates more broadly to indigenous responsibility, which seems to be your leitmotif, allow me to point out that common law applies to our indigenous peoples just as much as it applies to everybody else in Australia.

In fact, our indigenous peoples are held responsible for their acts to such an extent that their incarceration rate is 17 times higher than that of non-indigenous people.

According to the Australia Institute, “the Voice could have offered a new way forward to end Australia’s appallingly high incarceration rates” for our indigenous peoples.

But of course, we voted against that, didn’t we ?

.

But of course, we voted against that, didn’t we ?
Banjo Paterson,
NO ! People voted against 101% certainty of corruption & misplaced power for people (activists & bureaucrats of all ethnicities engaged in the Token industry) who have already proven that fact all too clearly !

.

Dear Indyvidual,

.

You wrote :

« NO ! People voted against 101% certainty of corruption & misplaced power for people (activists & bureaucrats of all ethnicities engaged in the Token industry) who have already proven that fact all too clearly ! »
.

Thanks, Indyvidual. No doubt that’s the reason for your own vote and probably for that of many others who share your opinion. But I see that the media is full of interviews of people having voted NO and that there are almost as many different reasons for their vote as there are people interviewed. None of them mention the reason for your NO vote.

I managed to find one major reputable news source, the Financial Review, that published the results of a professional survey conducted quarterly by JWS Research called “True Issues” that gauges the issues of most concern to voters, and rates how they feel the government is dealing with them.

The latest “True Issues” survey reveals that while 8 in 10 voters wanted the government focused on the cost of living, just 1 in 10 felt the same about the Voice. The Indigenous Voice to Parliament barely registered as an issue with voters during the final days of the referendum campaign, but concern over the cost of living had escalated to record levels.

The survey found that :

« Frustration among voters that the Voice was distracting the government from bread-and-butter issues was commonly cited as one of the reasons driving the No vote, even though the government was at pains to show it had not lost focus ».

“True Issue” also notes that :

« The government’s overall performance rating slipped to an index of 48, the first time it has been below 50 since Labor won the election in May last year. »

.

Banjo Patterson,
I spoke with quite a number of indigenous & self-proclaimed indigenous & was surprised at how many said they didn't support the Voice for the same reason I did.
I suppose we all had experience as a decision maker for our choice !

I will have to presume your background is Malaysian Chinese (education in Malaysia, self identified Chinese ethnicity).

In talking about the referendum, I often started with my experience living in Malaysia for 6-years as an expat (with 10-years in Singapore before that) with its constitutional enshrinement of Bumiputra which I saw as very analogous to the Voice.

I'd be fascinated to learn if you also see any similarities?