On 12 July The Age reported that Scott Morrison had "shut down the idea of enshrining an Indigenous voice to parliament in the constitution in any upcoming referendum", according to Crikey. A little time before this news appeared in the public sphere people had been talking about Morrison’s decision to allow Ken Wyatt, the minister for Indigenous Australians, to look at the Uluru Statement from the Heart and the related matter of how to implement recommendations of the Referendum Council, which had brought a report to the government – which at the time was under Turnbull as PM – in late 2017.
Turnbull had famously rejected the council’s idea of setting up a Voice to Parliament, which the council said would have acted as an advisory body, on the grounds that it would have constituted a “third chamber” in Parliament. In the period of time that followed that series of events no-one on the left had proven Turnbull wrong even though the Referendum Council’s web page said that the VtP was never intended to have a legislative role.
The period of time used for this survey was one day (12 July) and a lot of the comments came with the #auspol hashtag. Late in the morning the MyGov website crash became more visible as a topic of conversation on the hashtag stream, but this kind of switching tracks is common. At any one time there will be a dominant subject that most people are focused on. For the present survey this was only early in the morning on the back of the Age announcement that Crikey had telegraphed. At around lunchtime a second wave of media stories started to appear, sparking more commentary.
The overwhelming majority of the 40 individual tweets included in this survey were critical of the government for what was perceived to be a failure of policy in not deciding to enshrine a VtP in the Constitution. This was not surprising since Twitter in general and (particularly) the #auspol hashtag skew progressive. Some people offered helpful suggestions to the government about how to go about changing the Constitution to recognise Aborigines as the first occupants of the continent.
In the end the needed information was delivered to me but it only came at the final call. If someone had provided this information in 2017, I thought, a lot of anxiety and confusion might have been avoided by many people.
What this entire exercise showed me is that people tend to be irrationally cemented to their party position but if you decide to step outside of that kind of mindset you can reach a position that different parties can agree on. If people who know the answers are not approachable and instead dig in, relying on scorn to achieve their goals, nothing gets settled. People need to calm down and talk like rational human beings if you want to create a forum where meaningful dialogue can occur. It’s only in this kind of environment that any progress can get made.
I haven’t categorised the comments any further than putting them in the order in which I saw them. At some times during the day I wasn’t at my desk so I will have missed some comments; this survey is therefore not exhaustive. I think however that it is indicative of a general mood in the community surrounding this issue and surrounding the government’s performance more generally. Having said that here are the tweets …
On 12 July at 7.07am, a Queensland account with 445 followers tweeted, “Is Ken Wyatt really the man he now portrays? As he stood with the Abbott ‘Ditch the Witch’ mob, I question his ethics and underlying agenda.” At 8.30am on the same day, a Melbourne account with 259 followers responded with this: “He chose to join the Liberal Party. The same party that instigated The Intervention and that wound back Mabo gains, that is removing support from remote communities etc. He knew their history before he joined. It was a telling choice.”
At 9.55am a Lilyfield, Sydney, account with 443 followers tweeted, “Time for action rather than prayers. Essential poll: majority of Australians want Indigenous recognition and voice to parliament.” The words came with a link to a Guardian article with news of the poll mentioned in the man’s tweet.
On the same day at 9.58am a New Zealand-based Australian scientist with 37,902 followers tweeted, “Sorry just catching up here - are we back to ‘Recognition’ in the Constitution instead of implementing Makarrata?” The second reference was to a part of the Referendum Council’s request for truth-telling bodies to be set up at the state level in order to ensure that the community understood the nature of the wrongs done to Aborigines during the period white people had been dominant on the continent.
At 10.05am on the same day an Australian account with 1943 followers tweeted, “Ok here's a new definition of Privilege for Modern Australia. 1. Free speech to Vilify and descriminate [sic] for organised religion. Coupled with 2. Denial of Constitutionally based role in determining First Nations own future (because Whitefellas have done such a bang-up job).”
At 10.14am an Australian account with 4271 followers tweeted a link to a story in the Saturday Paper along with the comment, “PM to ’veto’ Indigenous voice to parliament despite popular support,” which I took to be the news outlet’s story headline.
At 10.17am the Australian newspaper tweeted a link to a story on its website with the following text: “If you ask Malcolm Turnbull, he’ll tell you a referendum on indigenous recognition was his idea and Scott Morrison is merely copying him ... or so STREWTH hears.”
At 8.47am a fake Andrew Bolt account had tweeted, “SAY IT OUT LOUD, PRIME MINISTER. NO RACE-BASED PARLIAMENT.” This was retweeted 11 times and I saw it at about 10.19am.
The previous day at 7.36pm a Melbourne account with 2042 followers had tweeted, “The proposed referendum on Indigenous recognition by this government is a red herring to distract the populace while they continue to erode public services, transfer wealth to the 1% and expand the military industrial complex.” The next day at 10.23am he retweeted his earlier tweet and added the following comment, “And so it is... they want to knock the Uluru Statement on it’s [sic] head and conjure up a ‘debate’ for three years.”
At 10.30am the Radio National account tweeted a link to a story on the ABC’s website with the following text: “The #MorrisonGovernment appears to be shunning any move to enshrine an Indigenous voice to Parliament in the #Constitution.”
At 10.31am an Armidale account with 694 followers retweeted the Guardian story as a link and added the following comment: “When was the last time a Poll got anything right in Australia? Asking for a friend who lost a $1m on the election. Are you really going to tell a pollster you are a racist?”
At 9.48am as part of an ongoing conversation about the referendum Council’s report and the Morrison announcement, a person from western Sydney with 5389 followers tweeted, “And [it was] the Howard-Abbott position. A referendum circus for symbolic recognition. Not sure they have reckoned with Voice Treaty Truth tho. It is superbly well crafted and the people power behind it is undeniable. I think the Liberals are gonna get schooled in Black democracy.”
In response a person who routinely criticises the media (and who I used to work with) tweeted, “Pee-ramble II: nobody likes it, don't bother.” The reference was to the suggestions dating from earlier in the century about changing the Constitution’s preamble to acknowledge Aborigines as the country’s first occupants. Then a few minutes later in response to that, a person from Canberra with 4679 followers tweeted, “yes, symbolic recognition is Howard Preamble Mark 2 .. #Voice referendum should be a one-liner, a non-specific head of power in s 51 under which Parliament can legislate, eg #ATSIC .. any more detail in the Constitution will not happen, but a head of power is .. powerful.”
At 10.36am in response to a story from the ABC’s ‘insiders’ program that had gone up at 8.15am, a person who lives in Australia and who had 31 followers tweeted, “Must be such a relief for all the bigots in the Morrison govt. to finally feel empowered enough to openly voice their racism. No one is buying the whole ‘3rd chamber’ [bullshit] excuse.”
At 11.33am the account for the ABC’s ‘Insiders’ TV program tweeted a video showing Annabel Crabb talking (but I can’t listen to audio on my desktop) along with the text: “#Insiders host @annabelcrabb on the last attempts to change the Constitution.”
At 11.42am the Australian Defence Association tweeted, “National unity is a pillar of our national security & sovereignty. Prof Anne Twomey, Aust's top constitutional law academic, notes key facts & concepts for a ‘debate’ largely lacking it on both sides. Repeating the divisive & corrupt ATSIC experiment can be avoided.” This tweet came with a retweet of one from the ABC’s ‘The Drum’ program of the day before that said, “'It clearly couldn’t be a third house of parliament.’ Are you confused about what an Indigenous voice to parliament would look like? Let constitutional lawyer professor Anne Twomey, who wrote the constitutional draft, explain.” That tweet came with a video taken during the screening of the night’s program.
At 11.52am a Sydney account with 3547 followers tweeted, “RT: It's so important that people have clear, factual information about an Indigenous Voice to Parliament and counter the #IPA misinformation that Morrison, Joyce & others are happy to promote #FactsnotLies.” This tweet came with a retweet of the ABC ‘The Drum’ tweet already mentioned.
At 11.53am a Canberra account with 64 followers tweeted, “Day 2 of #IndigenousRecognition referendum (?): dancing on head of pin re definitions; PM & Ministers don't agree; Indigenous (organisations) pitted against each other. All aided & abetted by News Corp. Pay close attention to the detail & background jigsaw being assembled.”
On the day before, 11 July, an anti-gambling campaigner who lives in Melbourne had tweeted, “There is no bigger enemy of Indigenous Australians than Andrew Bolt who today says an indigenous voice to Parliament will ‘wreck the nation’. The Murdoch family is disgraced by their support of this nasty bloke.” Then on the day of the survey at 11.58am a woman with 8307 followers retweeted this tweet with her own comment which said, “And I repeat what Kerry O'Brien told journalists and all Australians during his recent Logies speech: ‘And if you're told that, don't you believe it.’”
At 12.07pm a Canberra account with 56 followers responded to a tweet by the columnist Peter FitzSimons that included a tweet from the ABC’s ‘Insiders’ TV program that had gone up the day before at 8.35am and that had said, “Liberal MP @CraigKellyMP has warned he and other Coalition members could ‘actively campaign for the no side’ if @KenWyattMP pursues a proposal for constitutional recognition for Indigenous Australians, writes @murpharoo.” The tweet contained a link to a story on the website of the Guardian titled, “Craig Kelly says he could 'campaign for the no side' on Indigenous recognition.” FitzSimons’ tweet said, “And this is where @ScottMorrisonMP needs to step up and put his whole weight behind @KenWyattMP. LEAD, PM!” And the new tweet from the Canberra resident said, “In Australia’s constitutional preamble replace ‘humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God’ (kowtowing, irrelevant) with ‘acknowledging Australia’s indigenous peoples as first Australians’ (or similar words).”
At 12.12pm a former ABC staffer I follow tweeted a link to a story on the ABC’s website with the comment, “Indigenous constitutional recognition a difficult goal for Scott Morrison and Ken Wyatt...” that had the same text as the headline.
At 12.23pm a Queensland account with 13.902 followers tweeted, “Also, we have a third chamber. It's called the Federation Chamber. There's no reason why the person(s) tasked with being the Indigenous voice couldn't make speeches there. No legislative matters occur there. Dutton doesn't want people to have that, though.”
At 12.30pm an account with 559 followers tweeted, “So @ScottMorrisonMP not showing any love for our ATSI brothers & sisters, but weakly caving to the IPA-bred, hard right neocons. S’pose he’ll offer a prayer instead...”
At 12.32pm an account with 217 followers tweeted, “Where's the supposed new found respect & authority of PM Morrison? No leadership to quieten his reactionary rabble of hard right racist naysayers to progress. No clear statement of support for Recognition. Minister Wyatt is left to ever patiently ask. So painful. Blighted.”
At 12.32pm Gabrielle Jackson, who works for the Guardian, tweeted, “What a waste of time. Peter Dutton rules out voice to parliament, labelling it a 'third chamber', by @AmyRemeikis.” This tweet came with a link to a story on the outlet’s website.
At 12.33pm the Financial Review tweeted a link to a story on its website with the comment, “The country's first indigenous minister, Ken Wyatt, tells Lunch with the AFR he joined the Liberal party to change it.”
At 12.38pm in response to the Guardian story mentioned above, Samuel Clark, the executive producer of the ABC’s ‘Insiders’ and elections coverage programs, tweeted, “Meanwhile, Craig Kelly has just told @tomwconnell that it's not a third chamber but it could be ‘seen to be a third chamber if it's entrenched in the constitution’.” Tom Connell is a Sky News reporter. In response to Clark’s tweet a woman with 5669 followers tweeted, “Star chamber still scaremongering on this chamber.”
At 12.57pm a Guardian contributor with 3618 followers tweeted, along with the link to a Guardian story titled “Peter Dutton rules out voice to parliament, labelling it a 'third chamber'” (that had gone up at midday), a comment that said, “Sadly predictable: `Sources close to PM' (read advisors under instruction) & Dutton torpedo #Indigenous Voice before genuine political discussion. L/NP l/ship - Abbott to Turnbull & Morrison - never serious & always lied about it as '3rd chamber'.”
At 6.51pm an Australian Catholic University academic retweeted a tweet that had gone up the day before, from a man with 1572 followers, who wrote, “’The Voice to Parliament is a common feature in many liberal democracies around the world. It is a simple proposition: that Indigenous peoples should have a say in the laws and policies that affect their lives and communities.’ - Professor Megan Davis.” The tweet came with a link to an ABC story titled “The Voice to Parliament: Our plea to be heard” by a constitutional lawyer and Pro Vice Chancellor Indigenous at the University of New South Wales named Megan Davis. Davis had blocked me the year before for asking questions about the VtP.
At 8.25pm a law academic from Melbourne tweeted, “Education needed on purpose of voice to parliament: @DaniLarkin2.” The tweet contained a link to an ABC radio website featuring a recording titled, “There's misconceptions around the function of a voice to parliament: Dani Larkin.” I thought this was mildly optimistic since no-one knows how the VtP will actually work, and I said something along those lines. No reply. As an aside, I can’t listen to audio on my desktop PC so I was unable to hear what Larkin had said on-air.
Later, the academic responded, saying, “How it works can be worked out, there are many different types of advisory bodies already part of the public law system, [Australian Law Reform Commission], Productivity Commission, etc.” And then Dani Larkin replied to me, saying, “We have more than enough bodies to look to (for our structuring of the Voice) to be guided by (both within and outside of Australia). This is a strength and a reform mentality for us all to be guided by.” So why didn’t anyone say this in 2017 and save us all the anxiety? When I read these comments I didn’t understand why people had been so unforthcoming over the past two years. All the confusion seemed so unnecessary.
Turnbull had famously rejected the council’s idea of setting up a Voice to Parliament, which the council said would have acted as an advisory body, on the grounds that it would have constituted a “third chamber” in Parliament. In the period of time that followed that series of events no-one on the left had proven Turnbull wrong even though the Referendum Council’s web page said that the VtP was never intended to have a legislative role.
The period of time used for this survey was one day (12 July) and a lot of the comments came with the #auspol hashtag. Late in the morning the MyGov website crash became more visible as a topic of conversation on the hashtag stream, but this kind of switching tracks is common. At any one time there will be a dominant subject that most people are focused on. For the present survey this was only early in the morning on the back of the Age announcement that Crikey had telegraphed. At around lunchtime a second wave of media stories started to appear, sparking more commentary.
The overwhelming majority of the 40 individual tweets included in this survey were critical of the government for what was perceived to be a failure of policy in not deciding to enshrine a VtP in the Constitution. This was not surprising since Twitter in general and (particularly) the #auspol hashtag skew progressive. Some people offered helpful suggestions to the government about how to go about changing the Constitution to recognise Aborigines as the first occupants of the continent.
In the end the needed information was delivered to me but it only came at the final call. If someone had provided this information in 2017, I thought, a lot of anxiety and confusion might have been avoided by many people.
What this entire exercise showed me is that people tend to be irrationally cemented to their party position but if you decide to step outside of that kind of mindset you can reach a position that different parties can agree on. If people who know the answers are not approachable and instead dig in, relying on scorn to achieve their goals, nothing gets settled. People need to calm down and talk like rational human beings if you want to create a forum where meaningful dialogue can occur. It’s only in this kind of environment that any progress can get made.
I haven’t categorised the comments any further than putting them in the order in which I saw them. At some times during the day I wasn’t at my desk so I will have missed some comments; this survey is therefore not exhaustive. I think however that it is indicative of a general mood in the community surrounding this issue and surrounding the government’s performance more generally. Having said that here are the tweets …
On 12 July at 7.07am, a Queensland account with 445 followers tweeted, “Is Ken Wyatt really the man he now portrays? As he stood with the Abbott ‘Ditch the Witch’ mob, I question his ethics and underlying agenda.” At 8.30am on the same day, a Melbourne account with 259 followers responded with this: “He chose to join the Liberal Party. The same party that instigated The Intervention and that wound back Mabo gains, that is removing support from remote communities etc. He knew their history before he joined. It was a telling choice.”
At 9.55am a Lilyfield, Sydney, account with 443 followers tweeted, “Time for action rather than prayers. Essential poll: majority of Australians want Indigenous recognition and voice to parliament.” The words came with a link to a Guardian article with news of the poll mentioned in the man’s tweet.
On the same day at 9.58am a New Zealand-based Australian scientist with 37,902 followers tweeted, “Sorry just catching up here - are we back to ‘Recognition’ in the Constitution instead of implementing Makarrata?” The second reference was to a part of the Referendum Council’s request for truth-telling bodies to be set up at the state level in order to ensure that the community understood the nature of the wrongs done to Aborigines during the period white people had been dominant on the continent.
At 10.05am on the same day an Australian account with 1943 followers tweeted, “Ok here's a new definition of Privilege for Modern Australia. 1. Free speech to Vilify and descriminate [sic] for organised religion. Coupled with 2. Denial of Constitutionally based role in determining First Nations own future (because Whitefellas have done such a bang-up job).”
At 10.14am an Australian account with 4271 followers tweeted a link to a story in the Saturday Paper along with the comment, “PM to ’veto’ Indigenous voice to parliament despite popular support,” which I took to be the news outlet’s story headline.
At 10.17am the Australian newspaper tweeted a link to a story on its website with the following text: “If you ask Malcolm Turnbull, he’ll tell you a referendum on indigenous recognition was his idea and Scott Morrison is merely copying him ... or so STREWTH hears.”
At 8.47am a fake Andrew Bolt account had tweeted, “SAY IT OUT LOUD, PRIME MINISTER. NO RACE-BASED PARLIAMENT.” This was retweeted 11 times and I saw it at about 10.19am.
The previous day at 7.36pm a Melbourne account with 2042 followers had tweeted, “The proposed referendum on Indigenous recognition by this government is a red herring to distract the populace while they continue to erode public services, transfer wealth to the 1% and expand the military industrial complex.” The next day at 10.23am he retweeted his earlier tweet and added the following comment, “And so it is... they want to knock the Uluru Statement on it’s [sic] head and conjure up a ‘debate’ for three years.”
At 10.30am the Radio National account tweeted a link to a story on the ABC’s website with the following text: “The #MorrisonGovernment appears to be shunning any move to enshrine an Indigenous voice to Parliament in the #Constitution.”
At 10.31am an Armidale account with 694 followers retweeted the Guardian story as a link and added the following comment: “When was the last time a Poll got anything right in Australia? Asking for a friend who lost a $1m on the election. Are you really going to tell a pollster you are a racist?”
At 9.48am as part of an ongoing conversation about the referendum Council’s report and the Morrison announcement, a person from western Sydney with 5389 followers tweeted, “And [it was] the Howard-Abbott position. A referendum circus for symbolic recognition. Not sure they have reckoned with Voice Treaty Truth tho. It is superbly well crafted and the people power behind it is undeniable. I think the Liberals are gonna get schooled in Black democracy.”
In response a person who routinely criticises the media (and who I used to work with) tweeted, “Pee-ramble II: nobody likes it, don't bother.” The reference was to the suggestions dating from earlier in the century about changing the Constitution’s preamble to acknowledge Aborigines as the country’s first occupants. Then a few minutes later in response to that, a person from Canberra with 4679 followers tweeted, “yes, symbolic recognition is Howard Preamble Mark 2 .. #Voice referendum should be a one-liner, a non-specific head of power in s 51 under which Parliament can legislate, eg #ATSIC .. any more detail in the Constitution will not happen, but a head of power is .. powerful.”
At 10.36am in response to a story from the ABC’s ‘insiders’ program that had gone up at 8.15am, a person who lives in Australia and who had 31 followers tweeted, “Must be such a relief for all the bigots in the Morrison govt. to finally feel empowered enough to openly voice their racism. No one is buying the whole ‘3rd chamber’ [bullshit] excuse.”
At 11.33am the account for the ABC’s ‘Insiders’ TV program tweeted a video showing Annabel Crabb talking (but I can’t listen to audio on my desktop) along with the text: “#Insiders host @annabelcrabb on the last attempts to change the Constitution.”
At 11.42am the Australian Defence Association tweeted, “National unity is a pillar of our national security & sovereignty. Prof Anne Twomey, Aust's top constitutional law academic, notes key facts & concepts for a ‘debate’ largely lacking it on both sides. Repeating the divisive & corrupt ATSIC experiment can be avoided.” This tweet came with a retweet of one from the ABC’s ‘The Drum’ program of the day before that said, “'It clearly couldn’t be a third house of parliament.’ Are you confused about what an Indigenous voice to parliament would look like? Let constitutional lawyer professor Anne Twomey, who wrote the constitutional draft, explain.” That tweet came with a video taken during the screening of the night’s program.
At 11.52am a Sydney account with 3547 followers tweeted, “RT: It's so important that people have clear, factual information about an Indigenous Voice to Parliament and counter the #IPA misinformation that Morrison, Joyce & others are happy to promote #FactsnotLies.” This tweet came with a retweet of the ABC ‘The Drum’ tweet already mentioned.
At 11.53am a Canberra account with 64 followers tweeted, “Day 2 of #IndigenousRecognition referendum (?): dancing on head of pin re definitions; PM & Ministers don't agree; Indigenous (organisations) pitted against each other. All aided & abetted by News Corp. Pay close attention to the detail & background jigsaw being assembled.”
On the day before, 11 July, an anti-gambling campaigner who lives in Melbourne had tweeted, “There is no bigger enemy of Indigenous Australians than Andrew Bolt who today says an indigenous voice to Parliament will ‘wreck the nation’. The Murdoch family is disgraced by their support of this nasty bloke.” Then on the day of the survey at 11.58am a woman with 8307 followers retweeted this tweet with her own comment which said, “And I repeat what Kerry O'Brien told journalists and all Australians during his recent Logies speech: ‘And if you're told that, don't you believe it.’”
At 12.07pm a Canberra account with 56 followers responded to a tweet by the columnist Peter FitzSimons that included a tweet from the ABC’s ‘Insiders’ TV program that had gone up the day before at 8.35am and that had said, “Liberal MP @CraigKellyMP has warned he and other Coalition members could ‘actively campaign for the no side’ if @KenWyattMP pursues a proposal for constitutional recognition for Indigenous Australians, writes @murpharoo.” The tweet contained a link to a story on the website of the Guardian titled, “Craig Kelly says he could 'campaign for the no side' on Indigenous recognition.” FitzSimons’ tweet said, “And this is where @ScottMorrisonMP needs to step up and put his whole weight behind @KenWyattMP. LEAD, PM!” And the new tweet from the Canberra resident said, “In Australia’s constitutional preamble replace ‘humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God’ (kowtowing, irrelevant) with ‘acknowledging Australia’s indigenous peoples as first Australians’ (or similar words).”
At 12.12pm a former ABC staffer I follow tweeted a link to a story on the ABC’s website with the comment, “Indigenous constitutional recognition a difficult goal for Scott Morrison and Ken Wyatt...” that had the same text as the headline.
At 12.23pm a Queensland account with 13.902 followers tweeted, “Also, we have a third chamber. It's called the Federation Chamber. There's no reason why the person(s) tasked with being the Indigenous voice couldn't make speeches there. No legislative matters occur there. Dutton doesn't want people to have that, though.”
At 12.30pm an account with 559 followers tweeted, “So @ScottMorrisonMP not showing any love for our ATSI brothers & sisters, but weakly caving to the IPA-bred, hard right neocons. S’pose he’ll offer a prayer instead...”
At 12.32pm an account with 217 followers tweeted, “Where's the supposed new found respect & authority of PM Morrison? No leadership to quieten his reactionary rabble of hard right racist naysayers to progress. No clear statement of support for Recognition. Minister Wyatt is left to ever patiently ask. So painful. Blighted.”
At 12.32pm Gabrielle Jackson, who works for the Guardian, tweeted, “What a waste of time. Peter Dutton rules out voice to parliament, labelling it a 'third chamber', by @AmyRemeikis.” This tweet came with a link to a story on the outlet’s website.
At 12.33pm the Financial Review tweeted a link to a story on its website with the comment, “The country's first indigenous minister, Ken Wyatt, tells Lunch with the AFR he joined the Liberal party to change it.”
At 12.38pm in response to the Guardian story mentioned above, Samuel Clark, the executive producer of the ABC’s ‘Insiders’ and elections coverage programs, tweeted, “Meanwhile, Craig Kelly has just told @tomwconnell that it's not a third chamber but it could be ‘seen to be a third chamber if it's entrenched in the constitution’.” Tom Connell is a Sky News reporter. In response to Clark’s tweet a woman with 5669 followers tweeted, “Star chamber still scaremongering on this chamber.”
At 12.57pm a Guardian contributor with 3618 followers tweeted, along with the link to a Guardian story titled “Peter Dutton rules out voice to parliament, labelling it a 'third chamber'” (that had gone up at midday), a comment that said, “Sadly predictable: `Sources close to PM' (read advisors under instruction) & Dutton torpedo #Indigenous Voice before genuine political discussion. L/NP l/ship - Abbott to Turnbull & Morrison - never serious & always lied about it as '3rd chamber'.”
At 6.51pm an Australian Catholic University academic retweeted a tweet that had gone up the day before, from a man with 1572 followers, who wrote, “’The Voice to Parliament is a common feature in many liberal democracies around the world. It is a simple proposition: that Indigenous peoples should have a say in the laws and policies that affect their lives and communities.’ - Professor Megan Davis.” The tweet came with a link to an ABC story titled “The Voice to Parliament: Our plea to be heard” by a constitutional lawyer and Pro Vice Chancellor Indigenous at the University of New South Wales named Megan Davis. Davis had blocked me the year before for asking questions about the VtP.
At 8.25pm a law academic from Melbourne tweeted, “Education needed on purpose of voice to parliament: @DaniLarkin2.” The tweet contained a link to an ABC radio website featuring a recording titled, “There's misconceptions around the function of a voice to parliament: Dani Larkin.” I thought this was mildly optimistic since no-one knows how the VtP will actually work, and I said something along those lines. No reply. As an aside, I can’t listen to audio on my desktop PC so I was unable to hear what Larkin had said on-air.
Later, the academic responded, saying, “How it works can be worked out, there are many different types of advisory bodies already part of the public law system, [Australian Law Reform Commission], Productivity Commission, etc.” And then Dani Larkin replied to me, saying, “We have more than enough bodies to look to (for our structuring of the Voice) to be guided by (both within and outside of Australia). This is a strength and a reform mentality for us all to be guided by.” So why didn’t anyone say this in 2017 and save us all the anxiety? When I read these comments I didn’t understand why people had been so unforthcoming over the past two years. All the confusion seemed so unnecessary.
No comments:
Post a Comment