full
Episode 405 - More Ridiculous and Embarrassing Ideas.
In this episode we discuss:
- 5 Days of Grief leave
- Comparisons to the Republic vote
- Frank Brennan
- Remember Liam
- Alasdair Macintyre
- Cam Bagged Me
- Quick counterpoints
- Pitiful
- Guy Rundle on The Voice
- Treaty
- Boarding School Options
- Essential Poll on Gaza
To financially support the Podcast you can make:
- a per-episode donation via Patreon or
- one-off donation via credit card; or
- one-off or regular donations via Paypal or
- if you are into Cryptocurrency you can send Satoshis.
We Livestream every Monday night at 7:30 pm Brisbane time. Follow us on Facebook or YouTube. Watch us live and join the discussion in the chat room.
You can sign up for our newsletter, which links to articles that Trevor has highlighted as potentially interesting and that may be discussed on the podcast. You will get 3 emails per week. After the fiasco mentioned in episode 454 I can't use Mailchimp anymore so for the moment, send me an email and I'll add you to a temporary list until something more automated is arranged.
We have a website. www.ironfistvelvetglove.com.au
You can email us. The address is trevor@ironfistvelvetglove.com.au
You can send us a voicemail message at Speakpipe
Transcripts started in episode 324. You can use this link to search our transcripts. Type "iron fist velvet glove" into the search directory, click on our podcast and then do a word search. It even has a player which will play the relevant section. It is incredibly quick.
Transcript
Suburban Eastern Australia, an environment that has, over time,
Speaker:evolved some extraordinarily unique groups of homosapiens.
Speaker:But today, we observe a small tribe akin to a group of meerkats that
Speaker:gather together atop a small mound to watch, question, and discuss the
Speaker:current events of their city, their country, and their world at large.
Speaker:Let's listen keenly and observe this group fondly known as the
Speaker:Iron Fist and the Velvet Glove.
Speaker:Welcome back, dear listener.
Speaker:Episode 405, the Iron Fist and the Velvet Glove podcast.
Speaker:I'm Trevor, aka the Iron Fist, coming in loud and clear, hopefully, from
Speaker:the leafy western suburbs of Brisbane, upper middle class electorate of Ryan.
Speaker:In the tropics, we have Scott in Mackay.
Speaker:How are you, Scott?
Speaker:Oops.
Speaker:Good thanks, Trevor.
Speaker:G'day, Joe.
Speaker:G'day, listeners.
Speaker:How are you all?
Speaker:Scott is sporting a suntan from a recent trip to Airlie Beach and
Speaker:scuba diving, living the dream.
Speaker:And freezing his ass off in Devon is Joe the Tech Guy.
Speaker:And morning all.
Speaker:Yes.
Speaker:So we're here, all corners of the globe, for another episode of the
Speaker:Iron Fist and the Velvet Glove.
Speaker:We will talk about news and politics and sex and religion
Speaker:and other things that come up.
Speaker:If you're in the chat room, say hello, there's already five people there
Speaker:watching, so, make your comments, we'll try and incorporate them if we
Speaker:can Watley's there, and Don is there.
Speaker:There's must be one other person there.
Speaker:Say hello, whoever you are.
Speaker:Anyway.
Speaker:Right, what's on the agenda?
Speaker:You know, a lot had happened, I thought.
Speaker:Since the last episode, I was sort of scratching around for material, but
Speaker:we'll talk again, a bit of a debrief about The Voice and a bit more about
Speaker:Israel and Gaza, and that's kind of the topics we're going to be covering.
Speaker:We'll get to My friend Cam Riley bagged me on his podcast, The Bullshit Filter, so,
Speaker:he said my arguments were ridiculous and embarrassing and shame on me and everybody
Speaker:else who voted no, so we'll get to that, but ah, we'll work our way up to that.
Speaker:I actually think I actually, for the first time forever, I think
Speaker:I actually agree with Cam Riley.
Speaker:So anyway, we will come to that one and yeah, so.
Speaker:Gentlemen, things have happened.
Speaker:Queensland Government announced for people who are feeling the grief
Speaker:from the referendum result in the public service of Queensland, they
Speaker:can apply for five days grief leave.
Speaker:What do you think of that?
Speaker:That's just going to get abused.
Speaker:Yeah, exactly.
Speaker:That was my immediate thought was, what checking are they doing?
Speaker:Cause that sounds like a good excuse for five days off.
Speaker:Five days off, exactly.
Speaker:You know, you just got to go and say, I'm feeling very grieved about this.
Speaker:You know, I cannot believe my brethren, Indigenous brothers and sisters have
Speaker:been denied this once in a lifetime opportunity, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
Speaker:I feel embarrassed that it, you know, because Queensland had a 63 percent
Speaker:of the vote, sorry, the where was it, Queensland was 62 percent of the
Speaker:vote was no and that type of thing.
Speaker:I'm very embarrassed.
Speaker:I'm, I'm ashamed to be a Queenslander and they'll be able to, you know,
Speaker:bung it on like that and get their, get their five days off.
Speaker:The hell?
Speaker:It's a joke.
Speaker:Actually, Queensland was higher than that.
Speaker:You're looking at the referendum result in my notes for the Republic.
Speaker:Scott, I think.
Speaker:Oh, okay, gotcha.
Speaker:Which we'll get to.
Speaker:Which is one of the sort of things that has come up as a topic is that
Speaker:the result from this referendum, to a large extent, copied the result
Speaker:from the referendum for the Republic.
Speaker:So, in the notes I've got here overall, the vote for the Republic was defeated.
Speaker:54 percent 54.
Speaker:87 said no.
Speaker:In terms of states, Queensland was the highest in that case in
Speaker:saying no to a republic at 62%.
Speaker:No states actually are past it.
Speaker:Victoria was the closest, again.
Speaker:The Australian Capital Territory actually was in favour of the
Speaker:republic quite strongly, which again matched our recent referendum.
Speaker:And interestingly, according to Wikipedia the highest yes votes for
Speaker:the Republic referendum came from inner metropolitan areas, again, similar to...
Speaker:That doesn't surprise me.
Speaker:Yeah, yeah.
Speaker:So, votes in opposition to the proposed Republican vote...
Speaker:Came predominantly from rural and remote divisions, as well
Speaker:as many outer suburban areas.
Speaker:So, on those statistics, it kind of, the results matched up.
Speaker:And...
Speaker:And that's 30 years ago, isn't it?
Speaker:Yeah, it's...
Speaker:When was that?
Speaker:25 years ago or something, or was it 1999, wasn't it?
Speaker:Not sure when that was.
Speaker:Ah, okay.
Speaker:Hmm.
Speaker:So...
Speaker:Father Frank Brennan.
Speaker:Who we've talked about over the years on various things.
Speaker:He's the Jesuit priest who gets involved in a lot of stuff.
Speaker:And he was...
Speaker:Leading art socialist.
Speaker:Yeah.
Speaker:Also, just for context, he's the one who also said that if they
Speaker:brought in a rule that if you hear about child abuse in the Confession,
Speaker:you must alert the authorities.
Speaker:And he said that he wouldn't.
Speaker:Sorry.
Speaker:Despite that, okay.
Speaker:He still gets a run on all sorts of government bodies.
Speaker:He's definitely been one in favor of the Yes vote.
Speaker:And he was on the Karma Langton panel that was behind the report that was done.
Speaker:And he's been an advocate for indigenous rights for many years, and definitely
Speaker:a man on the side of the Yes vote, and not only Jesuit priest, but.
Speaker:Lawyer as well.
Speaker:So, he, he was basically saying that any referendum that does not get
Speaker:bipartisan support is doomed to fail.
Speaker:And I'm just going to play, let me just find this clip now that
Speaker:I've said that I think he's right.
Speaker:Yeah bipartisan support.
Speaker:Let's Let's see what he had to say about needing bipartisan support.
Speaker:We can all understand that Aboriginal leaders, with the publication of this
Speaker:letter, are very angry and upset.
Speaker:But I think we have to accept that it's simply a given.
Speaker:Doesn't matter what the topic of the referendum.
Speaker:If you do not have bipartisanship, there's just no point.
Speaker:draw all sorts of other conclusions might not all be altogether warranted.
Speaker:We are, and I think that what's happened is they've played
Speaker:roulette with the country's soul.
Speaker:We're way back, look at that letter that's come out from
Speaker:the Aboriginal leaders today.
Speaker:The anger, the disappointment, the despair.
Speaker:These are the people we've got to be able to work with well and constructively and
Speaker:in trust in order to close those gaps.
Speaker:And so, so much of what Noel Pearson detected as love in the air during
Speaker:the last week or two of the campaign.
Speaker:I'm just pausing there.
Speaker:I noted a little bit of anti Noel Pearson in that sentiment there.
Speaker:But I'll just finish it off.
Speaker:Australians have voted as they've always voted in referendums.
Speaker:They've basically said that we need to be sure that either there is a crisis
Speaker:or that there is consensus among our politicians and the great tragedy of
Speaker:this Kieran is that in the end All you've got to do is listen to people
Speaker:at the family barbecue nowadays.
Speaker:I mean, those who blame Albanese are those who are the Tory voters.
Speaker:Those who blame Dutton are those who are the Labor voters.
Speaker:And that sort of partisanship should never come into a referendum.
Speaker:Once it does, the referendum is lost completely.
Speaker:So he's kind of making the argument that it doesn't matter what the topic,
Speaker:if there's not bipartisan support, then you kind of go and get the result.
Speaker:That you got on the Republican vote and on the voice vote.
Speaker:And so maybe people who are reading the voice vote as a racist response
Speaker:are wrong, maybe, because maybe this is just what happens when you
Speaker:don't get a bipartisan support.
Speaker:What do you think of that, guys?
Speaker:Why would you want a nuanced answer?
Speaker:Where you can just blame racism?
Speaker:What do you reckon of that, Scott?
Speaker:I think he's, I think he's right.
Speaker:You know, it's It's one of those things, I blame them both for the failure of
Speaker:the referendum because Albanese I think would have been quite at liberty to sit
Speaker:down with the Indigenous leadership and say to them, it's going to be defeated.
Speaker:There's no point us throwing good money after bad.
Speaker:It's going to be defeated.
Speaker:So I just think that they should walk away from it.
Speaker:Then on top of all that, then.
Speaker:God, what's his name, Dutton was, he was very quick off the marks to say no.
Speaker:And everything he was asking for was asking for design of the voice and
Speaker:all that sort of stuff that was going to be up to Parliament to decide.
Speaker:Now, if that was where, if that was where it was going, then he, then
Speaker:Albanese, he could have actually said to the Indigenous leadership, okay,
Speaker:you want it to go ahead, but I think we've got to hold off for six months.
Speaker:And we've got to, we've got to have this hashed out with the opposition
Speaker:and that sort of stuff so that we can get them on board for what
Speaker:the design's going to look like.
Speaker:And then you've got something that you could take to the public and say,
Speaker:if you vote yes, this is what, this is the legislation we're going to put
Speaker:before parliament to get it approved.
Speaker:Then you would have had something that would have been a little
Speaker:less wishy washy than what we had.
Speaker:Because it was very much opening up the air and that sort of stuff where
Speaker:you said, well, Parliament will design it, which I had no problem with.
Speaker:But, a lot of people out there did have a problem with it.
Speaker:They didn't trust the politicians to get it right.
Speaker:So, as a result, I think that the smartest thing for them to do would
Speaker:have been actually turn around and say, Okay, this is what we're going to put to
Speaker:Parliament, this is what we'll get voted on, and this is what we're going to do.
Speaker:But, you know, it's just one of those things, like the National Party was
Speaker:first off the ranks and that sort of stuff when they actually opposed it,
Speaker:before anything had been decided on it, before there'd been even, there'd
Speaker:even been some talk about the question.
Speaker:Well, let me play a little bit from Frank Brennan again about the process,
Speaker:because he makes the argument that the wording had been determined before
Speaker:the Parliamentary Committee and the Opposition had a chance to be involved.
Speaker:And he was also critical that there wasn't a constitutional
Speaker:commission looking at this.
Speaker:And so let me play him on the fluid process and let me play that now.
Speaker:So here we go about the process.
Speaker:Was that the foundational problem here that some of the recommendations, some of
Speaker:the leadership went too far to get that agreement across the political divide?
Speaker:It's been the problem all along, Kieran, because what we've had is the Liberal
Speaker:and National parties have been clear that they're on the table in relation
Speaker:to minimal symbolic change, as the Aboriginal leaders would call it.
Speaker:The Aboriginal leaders said they wanted something substantive.
Speaker:Where things started to go wrong in terms of process was in 2012 when
Speaker:Julia Gillard set up her expert panel where they recommended a
Speaker:racial non discrimination clause.
Speaker:Now that was something substantive, but it could never fly.
Speaker:It was never subjected to the open, transparent scrutiny where
Speaker:you get all the lawyers and all the politicians at the table.
Speaker:The same thing happened with this where it was said That yes, Aboriginal
Speaker:people gathered at Uluru and they called it a Constitutional Convention.
Speaker:But there'd never been anything like a Constitutional Convention which was open
Speaker:to the other 97 percent of Australians.
Speaker:There's been nothing in place since 2017.
Speaker:And so the process was defective from the beginning.
Speaker:And what we then had was after the Garma Festival, as you know, that
Speaker:there was no move made by the Prime Minister to set up a process And by
Speaker:the time there was a parliamentary committee where the coalition could
Speaker:come to the table, it was over.
Speaker:Game set and match.
Speaker:The words were set in concrete.
Speaker:So sadly, bipartisanship by means of process was never there,
Speaker:and so it was always doomed.
Speaker:That was an interesting explanation, I think, that there should have
Speaker:been a process that involved a constitutional commission involving
Speaker:everybody, not only the 3%, but the 97%.
Speaker:And that, yeah, I agreed with, I agreed with him because, you know, it's one
Speaker:of those things that every, you know, we had a constitutional convention over
Speaker:the republic, it failed, but we had it.
Speaker:You know, we've had constitutional conventions whenever there's been
Speaker:talk of changing the constitution.
Speaker:Now, only seven of them got up, didn't they?
Speaker:Something like that, of the referendums that we've had?
Speaker:Not sure.
Speaker:Seven of them, there's only seven or eight of them are passed or something like that.
Speaker:But the one thing they all had in common was there was a, there
Speaker:was a constitutional convention.
Speaker:There wasn't in this case.
Speaker:And you know, he was right there.
Speaker:He was saying that, you know, you've got 3 percent of the
Speaker:population got together at Uluru.
Speaker:The other 97 percent weren't involved.
Speaker:And Albanese did come to it and that sort of stuff and say, well,
Speaker:you know, this is, you know, how he said, well, this is, this is the
Speaker:proposed wording that I put forward.
Speaker:Bounced around the cabinet table and that sort of stuff.
Speaker:Then he said, well, this is the question, you know, and without but
Speaker:also sorry, go ahead the Uluru thing.
Speaker:So there was the freedom of information document that contains the statement
Speaker:from the heart and that's showing one side of the negotiation table, isn't it?
Speaker:It's showing the position of the indigenous people.
Speaker:This, this was a wish list.
Speaker:And, and I don't think that they honestly expected they were gonna
Speaker:get all of those concessions.
Speaker:But it's been held up as this is what is gonna happen if you
Speaker:get the Constitution through.
Speaker:Mm-hmm.
Speaker:, I, I think that was, that was the scare tactic anyway.
Speaker:And we never had the, what's the other side want, you know, and as was
Speaker:said, the sitting around the table hashing it out and the yes, this is
Speaker:something that we can all get behind.
Speaker:So, Frank Brennan makes this, Frank Brennan's making the argument that
Speaker:it's crucial to get bipartisan support, you're doomed without it.
Speaker:And what they essentially did was take the Uluru Statement, where 3 percent
Speaker:of people considered it, and quickly wrapped up a question and, and put it
Speaker:forward to the opposition without any you know, the question was done and dusted
Speaker:without any negotiation at that point.
Speaker:And so really the chances of bipartisan support were cruelled
Speaker:by an inadequate process.
Speaker:And that then cruelled the whole thing, the way it was done.
Speaker:So it's sort of quite scathing in that sense of the inadequate
Speaker:process that was done.
Speaker:But the Uluru Statement also contained a treaty.
Speaker:So it was only part of that, so it wasn't...
Speaker:It would have satisfied nobody, I think.
Speaker:Hmm.
Speaker:Anyway, let's get on with his final comments about the way forward.
Speaker:I think there's goodwill and there's general agreement in the community, and
Speaker:on both sides of the political aisle in Canberra, that something more has to
Speaker:be done to close the gap, particularly on those ghastly health statistics.
Speaker:Well, guess what?
Speaker:We've got a coalition of Peaks, and there was an agreement which was
Speaker:negotiated with the Morrison government with that Coalition of Peaks, about
Speaker:which we've heard next to nothing while the referendum's been playing out.
Speaker:So let's get that Coalition of Peaks working properly.
Speaker:And in terms of health issues, you've got an enormous operation there with
Speaker:NACCHO, which represents all the community based Aboriginal health organisations.
Speaker:all 145 of them.
Speaker:They've got splendid officers there in Constitution Avenue in Canberra.
Speaker:They're headed up by a very competent Aboriginal civil
Speaker:servant there in Patricia Turner.
Speaker:And why isn't it that they're not being listened to more closely?
Speaker:I mean, during the referendum campaign, we had the Minister of Health out
Speaker:there even writing an article saying he needs to listen to a voice.
Speaker:But there was no mention of NACCHO or the Coalition of Peaks.
Speaker:So, now that the referendum is behind us, I think there's a need for the real
Speaker:work to be done so that NACCHO can be assured that they are right there at the
Speaker:table with the parliamentary processes and with the Minister and that the
Speaker:Coalition of Peaks is now taken seriously.
Speaker:Even though it was a creation at the time of the Morrison government, let's
Speaker:get past the party politics and let's start doing something constructive
Speaker:in order to close those gaps.
Speaker:Sounds very sensible to me.
Speaker:There was a question about the treaty and what it actually is.
Speaker:My understanding is it's a formal document between the government of
Speaker:Australia and the indigenous people recognizing that the land was stolen.
Speaker:And formalizing any form of reparation.
Speaker:So, it's basically, we understand that this land wasn't historically
Speaker:peopled by white people, and here is some form of compensation.
Speaker:for what was done in the past.
Speaker:And it sets a, it resets a a starting point, I think.
Speaker:It says that, yeah, we didn't come and buy this land properly in the first place.
Speaker:Here's our post hoc purchase of property.
Speaker:Hmm.
Speaker:Is that possible?
Speaker:Is it possible to find an appropriate Vendor 250 years later?
Speaker:Well, that's a question.
Speaker:And who are they going to negotiate with?
Speaker:Because they don't have a central tribal chief, do they?
Speaker:Well, that was the point of the voice.
Speaker:Yeah, I know, exactly.
Speaker:And you know, they don't have anyone that they can negotiate with.
Speaker:And...
Speaker:I think the voice would have given them something that they could have
Speaker:left behind that the government could have negotiated with.
Speaker:But as a result of not having that, you still can have a voice, you still
Speaker:can have a government appointed body, it's just not in the constitution.
Speaker:Yeah, you could do that.
Speaker:It's one of those things, like Albanese has already said that he's not going
Speaker:to, he's not going to legislate it.
Speaker:So, you know, Atsik for all its faults and all that sort of stuff, it was
Speaker:a representative body of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.
Speaker:Now, you know, you can certainly have a look at the leadership
Speaker:of Atsik and that sort of stuff.
Speaker:You can throw a hell of a lot of stones at them, because Jesus, did they
Speaker:deserve to have stones thrown at them?
Speaker:But the actual body itself.
Speaker:Didn't work, didn't work too badly.
Speaker:Didn't do a bad job of looking after them.
Speaker:So, you know, at least it would have, at least that would be something that
Speaker:the government could negotiate with.
Speaker:Because the, the whole idea of a treaty is that you, you've got two warring, got
Speaker:two warring sides that are sit down at a table and they negotiate with each other.
Speaker:And you know, you, you, each of you gives up something so that you end up
Speaker:with some sort of negotiated settlement.
Speaker:But, you know, there's no one, there's no one left for us to negotiate with, so,
Speaker:you know, 3 percent of the population?
Speaker:Yeah, okay, so 3 percent of the population around the table talking to each of them?
Speaker:I don't think you're going to get anything sensible out of that.
Speaker:No, exactly, so we do need somebody who is elected by them
Speaker:to represent them in negotiations.
Speaker:For sure, which is something the voice would have given them.
Speaker:You know, it would have given them some, they would have been, they would
Speaker:have had someone that they would have elected and that sort of stuff, out
Speaker:of their own 3 percent that they could have put up and said, these are the
Speaker:lot we want you to negotiate with.
Speaker:But, you know, that's now dead and buried, so I don't know what
Speaker:the hell they're going to do now.
Speaker:But again, it doesn't have to be dead and buried, it's dead
Speaker:and buried in the Constitution.
Speaker:Yeah, for sure, so Albanese could go and legislate it, if he really wanted to,
Speaker:but he's already said he's not going to.
Speaker:Are both of you guys kind of in favour of a treaty?
Speaker:Is that what I'm getting at?
Speaker:Not really.
Speaker:It's one of those things, I just think to myself, I'm trying to, I'm trying
Speaker:to be a little more sympathetic towards them, because living up here in Mackay,
Speaker:I've actually seen a, okay, you know, Bronwyn if you're listening and that
Speaker:sort of stuff, you can throw rocks at me and call me a racist if you want
Speaker:to, but I've seen a nicer side to the Indigenous people up here in Mackay
Speaker:than what I saw down in Rockhampton and you know, they are a hell of a nicer
Speaker:than what I saw down in Rockhampton.
Speaker:You know, I don't know if it's because they're mostly Torres what
Speaker:the story is, but they are not as abrasive and that type of thing as
Speaker:what they are down in Rockhampton.
Speaker:Anyway, that is, that's What I will say.
Speaker:So as a result that has opened my eyes a hell of a lot, and I have seen a different
Speaker:side of the argument living up here.
Speaker:So I am trying to open my mind to it.
Speaker:I'm not really in 100 percent in favor of it, but it is something that I am prepared
Speaker:to entertain with my mind and that type of thing, and then I'll think about it later.
Speaker:But you know my mate down the road who's Torres Strait Islander and that sort
Speaker:of stuff, he reckons that he reckons a treaty will be an absolute disaster,
Speaker:because it would be so divisive and that sort of stuff that could end up,
Speaker:you know, that with 97 percent of the population having to bow down to 3
Speaker:percent of the population and that's just never going to sit well with anyone.
Speaker:In the chat room, John asks, would a treaty be as divisive as a voice?
Speaker:What he says, it would be just as divisive.
Speaker:I think it might be a little bit more.
Speaker:I think it would be even worse.
Speaker:I think certainly the negotiation of a treaty would be.
Speaker:Because you've got the vast majority of people going, the past is
Speaker:the past, nothing to do with me.
Speaker:And 3 percent of people feeling wronged, historically.
Speaker:But I think at the end of the day, Nothing substantive is going to happen.
Speaker:Not, not talking about, we can do things about The Gap, absolutely, without having
Speaker:a treaty, but I think politically we will never advance until we have some
Speaker:form of treaty that recognises the past.
Speaker:Yeah, but see, you know, New Zealand, New Zealand only had to
Speaker:negotiate with one tribal group.
Speaker:You know, there was just that one tribal group that was the Maoris.
Speaker:So that was a hell of a lot simpler for them to negotiate
Speaker:with and that type of thing.
Speaker:That's why they got the Treaty of Waitangi.
Speaker:You know, it's, I don't know who the hell they're going to negotiate with over here.
Speaker:You know, because you've got several hundred tribes in Australia, don't you?
Speaker:Ah, let's talk about treaty in depth another time.
Speaker:There's so much involved.
Speaker:No, there is a shitload of stuff that is negotiated.
Speaker:Let's not get too sidetracked on that one, because that
Speaker:deserves six episodes on its own.
Speaker:The pros and cons of that.
Speaker:And the difficulties.
Speaker:So let's just move on a little bit from Treaty and let's talk about how
Speaker:do we think about moral dilemmas?
Speaker:Because this is a lead up to Cam Riley's bagging of me on his podcast.
Speaker:You telling Cam that he's wrong.
Speaker:Yes.
Speaker:That's it.
Speaker:So do we remember our discussion with Liam who came on and we
Speaker:were talking about the voice.
Speaker:It was a very civilized.
Speaker:Well conducted debate, I thought, where everybody got to have their say.
Speaker:We all walked away friends.
Speaker:So, if you recall, his priority was to take urgent, helpful action, as he
Speaker:perceived it, for Indigenous people, and I explained that my priority
Speaker:was sort of non racist, equal human rights, so that we were approaching
Speaker:it With different priorities, or a different premise, if you like.
Speaker:A different emphasis of a particular right that we were more concerned
Speaker:with because we just happened to.
Speaker:And that was a result of our life experience and cultural
Speaker:experiences and whatnot.
Speaker:So, in the field of rights, it is often the case that rights conflict,
Speaker:and you have to weigh up and decide Which right is more important at
Speaker:this particular point in time?
Speaker:I, I think the point is that you're both coming at it from a place of well
Speaker:meaning and not trying to harm somebody.
Speaker:Correct.
Speaker:We both had a, a moral position that was defensible and it was just weighing it up.
Speaker:And, you know, what I was doing was saying, well, bearing in mind all of
Speaker:these different facts, perhaps this voice isn't as helpful as you think it is or
Speaker:isn't as necessary as you think it is.
Speaker:And he would argue other things.
Speaker:So, sort of, being able to understand the moral premise that the other person
Speaker:was operating under was important.
Speaker:So, so we did that with Liam, and he did that with me, and we could
Speaker:compartmentalise our arguments and have a debate, each recognising
Speaker:the premise of the other.
Speaker:So I've got a book in front of me, Alasdair MacIntyre, After
Speaker:Virtue, and I want to sort of just give some different scenarios to
Speaker:demonstrate how this plays out.
Speaker:So, on the topic of war, for example, one position might be...
Speaker:A just war is one in which the good to be achieved outweighs the evils
Speaker:involved in waging the war, and in which a clear distinction can be made
Speaker:between combatants, whose lives are at stake, and innocent non combatants.
Speaker:But in a modern war, calculation of future escalation is never reliable, and no
Speaker:practically applicable distinction between combatants and non combatants can be made.
Speaker:Think in Gaza here.
Speaker:Therefore no modern war can be a just war.
Speaker:And we all now ought to be pacifists.
Speaker:That's one view of war.
Speaker:Another one might be, wars between the great powers are purely destructive,
Speaker:but wars waged to liberate oppressed groups, especially in the third
Speaker:world, are a necessary and therefore justified means for destroying
Speaker:the exploitative Domination, which stands between mankind and happiness.
Speaker:So, what you've got there in the first case is the principle
Speaker:of protecting innocent lives.
Speaker:That's the premise that is being highlighted.
Speaker:And in the second one, it's the principle of self determination, is the
Speaker:principle that the person is relying on.
Speaker:So two different ways of looking at war.
Speaker:Another example would be abortion.
Speaker:One way of looking at it would be, everyone has certain rights
Speaker:over his or her own person, including his or her own body.
Speaker:It follows from the nature of these rights that at the embryo is essentially
Speaker:part of the mother's body, the mother has a right to make her own uncoerced
Speaker:decision, uncoerced decision on whether she will have an abortion or not.
Speaker:Therefore abortion is morally permissible and ought to be allowed by law.
Speaker:That's one view.
Speaker:An alternative would be...
Speaker:Murder is wrong.
Speaker:Murder is taking of an innocent life.
Speaker:An embryo is an identifiable individual differing from a newborn infant
Speaker:only in being at an earlier stage on the long road to adult capacities.
Speaker:And if any life is innocent, that of an embryo is.
Speaker:If infanticide is murder, as it is, then abortion is murder.
Speaker:So abortion is not only morally wrong, but ought to be legally prohibited.
Speaker:So again...
Speaker:You've got the right to a bodily autonomy, first premise, versus
Speaker:universal right to life, second premise.
Speaker:Final example Justice demands that every citizen should enjoy, so far
Speaker:as is possible, an equal opportunity to develop his or her talents
Speaker:and his or her other potentials.
Speaker:But prerequisites for the provision of such equal opportunity include
Speaker:the provision of equal access to healthcare and to education.
Speaker:Therefore, justice requires the governmental provision of
Speaker:health and educational services, financed out of taxation.
Speaker:It also requires that no citizen should be able to buy an
Speaker:unfair share of such services.
Speaker:This in turn requires the abolition of private schools
Speaker:and private medical practice.
Speaker:That's one view of health and education.
Speaker:Another one would be, everyone has a right to incur such and only such obligations.
Speaker:As he or she wishes.
Speaker:To be free to make such and only such contracts as he or she desires.
Speaker:And to determine his or her own free choices.
Speaker:Physicians must therefore be free to practice on such terms as they desire.
Speaker:And patients must be free to choose among physicians.
Speaker:Teachers must be free to teach on such terms as they choose.
Speaker:And pupils and parents to go where they wish for education.
Speaker:It goes on.
Speaker:So the first one is a premise of equality in terms of education, health.
Speaker:The second is the premise of liberty.
Speaker:So when we're looking at moral questions, as we did with Liam on the voice, it
Speaker:was, what's the moral premise that you're really holding onto close here?
Speaker:And let's recognise that.
Speaker:So, so let me just go on a little bit here.
Speaker:Anybody want to argue with any of that at this point, or just, I'll
Speaker:just keep going, it's all good, or, say if I, no, keep going, yep, okay.
Speaker:So, every one of the arguments is logically valid, or can be easily
Speaker:expanded so as to be made so.
Speaker:The conclusions do indeed follow from their premises.
Speaker:But the rival premises are such that we possess no rational way of weighing
Speaker:the claims of one against the other.
Speaker:So, so what's that saying is, When it boils down to it, your main
Speaker:premise is equality, my main premise is liberty, and it's very difficult
Speaker:or impossible for us to say, well, liberty always outweighs equality or
Speaker:equality always outweighs liberty.
Speaker:We don't have, in our society, an overarching anchor that
Speaker:determines which of those wins.
Speaker:So, it goes on.
Speaker:For each premise employs some quite different normative or evaluative concept
Speaker:from the others, so that the claims made upon us are quite different kinds.
Speaker:It is precisely because there is in our society no established way of deciding
Speaker:between these claims, that moral argument appears to be necessarily interminable.
Speaker:From our rival conclusions we can argue back to our rival premises.
Speaker:But when we do arrive at our premises, argument ceases and the invocation of
Speaker:one premise against another becomes a matter of pure assertion and counter
Speaker:assertion, hence perhaps the slightly shrill tone of so much moral debate.
Speaker:I think that's right in that on the voice, people had different
Speaker:premises that they were relying on, and when people couldn't agree...
Speaker:Because nobody was prepared to say their premise is less important
Speaker:than the other person's premise.
Speaker:We're just left with people shouting at each other, shrilly, about the matter.
Speaker:I think that's where we got to with the debate.
Speaker:Jonathan Haidt explores that in The Righteous Mind.
Speaker:Talking about the mindsets, the differences in thought process behind...
Speaker:Conservatives and progressives.
Speaker:Mm-hmm.
Speaker:And saying it, it's very much which moral values we hold most closely.
Speaker:Mm-hmm.
Speaker:And, and what we associate with disgust.
Speaker:And so conservatives tend to be more think, whereas progressives
Speaker:tend to be more individualistic.
Speaker:Libertarians tend, probably conservatives, libertarians are more in the conservative
Speaker:camp now, which are the big individuals.
Speaker:Yeah.
Speaker:But it was more the, the left-leaning are much more about personal rights.
Speaker:So the, the right to bond the autonomy Yes.
Speaker:And the right to sexual freedom.
Speaker:Mm-hmm.
Speaker:, whereas the conservatives are much more, society says that's a bad
Speaker:thing, therefore it's a bad thing.
Speaker:But I'm saying that yeah left wingers have moral disgust around food
Speaker:hygiene, so they're much more picky about what they eat, for want of a
Speaker:better term whereas the conservatives are much more around sexual hygiene.
Speaker:Right.
Speaker:Yep.
Speaker:So, so, it's, it's taking, effectively...
Speaker:, there was a series of questions which were not politically aligned.
Speaker:And depending on how people answered these questions, you could
Speaker:tell their political alignment.
Speaker:Yes, I'm sure you could.
Speaker:Yeah.
Speaker:Some questions that seemed divorced from politics, but were indicative Yes.
Speaker:Of a political viewpoint.
Speaker:Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Speaker:So it would help if we had an overarching premise back in the
Speaker:good old days of religious belief.
Speaker:We did, you know, God's Law.
Speaker:That was it.
Speaker:That was the overarching moral, you know, what did God, what does God want?
Speaker:Okay, that's moral.
Speaker:That's the winning moral premise.
Speaker:No, no, no, what does my priest say that God wants?
Speaker:Yeah, exactly.
Speaker:But Alistair McIntyre
Speaker:says in After Virtue that the post enlightenment, we don't have the
Speaker:benefit of the religious sort of moral anchor to, to determine which
Speaker:of these moral premises wins out.
Speaker:And MacIntyre blames enlightenment for lack of morals.
Speaker:He says the enlightenment rejected the idea of a virtuous life through
Speaker:fulfilling your telos or purpose in life.
Speaker:Enlightenment imagined humans as agents of their own free will, guided only
Speaker:by their inner reasons or desires.
Speaker:So Aristotle could distinguish between what we are and what we ought to be,
Speaker:and this provided a moral anchor.
Speaker:But post Enlightenment philosophers have no moral anchor, no point
Speaker:of reference against which to adjudicate competing moral claims.
Speaker:And without such a reference point, moral arguments become interminable
Speaker:and pointless, as we've seen.
Speaker:And there's still the Golden Rule, I think.
Speaker:Do unto others is...
Speaker:Don't do to others?
Speaker:Well, the inverse of that.
Speaker:Don't do to others what you wouldn't have done to you.
Speaker:Yeah, how does that help in the voice debate?
Speaker:I, I think in the voice debate, you say, do these people have a voice?
Speaker:Do they have an equal voice to everybody else?
Speaker:Do they have the same right to be heard that I have?
Speaker:Oh, sorry, the same ability to be heard.
Speaker:And I would argue that corporations have a bigger ability to be heard
Speaker:than either I or the Aboriginals.
Speaker:I don't know that the Golden Rule helps in all situations, I don't
Speaker:know, but that's gonna get us there.
Speaker:But here's my anchor for you.
Speaker:I think we're social, cooperative creatures.
Speaker:We need a cooperative, communal society that works together to advance
Speaker:our little beehive here on Earth.
Speaker:Judge competing moral claims against this imperative.
Speaker:That's what I say.
Speaker:A little bit of Aristotelian, Aristotelian Telus type thing happening there.
Speaker:And I say that splintering off into identity groups is anathema
Speaker:to that project and constitutional approval of racial profiling will
Speaker:do serious damage to our beehive.
Speaker:So, that's a little lead in to...
Speaker:Cam Riley bagging me on his podcast.
Speaker:Let me find the the clip on that and I'll play it for you
Speaker:and we'll get into that one.
Speaker:Here we go.
Speaker:This is Cam on his podcast, The Bullshit Filter.
Speaker:Here we go.
Speaker:People just made a horrendous decision and, you know, as I said,
Speaker:I'm just extremely embarrassed and ashamed and appalled.
Speaker:By my fellow Countrymen and women this week.
Speaker:I'm disgusted and quite frankly, I can't wait for AI to take over.
Speaker:As I said, I think the human race is done it on.
Speaker:Yeah, yeah.
Speaker:Stick a fork in us.
Speaker:We're done.
Speaker:This is as good as we can do that.
Speaker:Australians listening who voted no.
Speaker:You probably don't if you listen to this show, although I know you know.
Speaker:My friend Trevor, who hosts the Iron Fist podcast, who's been a guest host
Speaker:on this many times, told me that he was voting no for reasons that made
Speaker:absolutely no sense, and he's usually very progressive, and I went out to lunch
Speaker:with him, listened to his arguments, they made completely no sense to me, and
Speaker:you know, I'm embarrassed for Trevor.
Speaker:I'm embarrassed for Trevor, I'm embarrassed for anyone who
Speaker:voted no so there you have it.
Speaker:There you go.
Speaker:He's embarrassed for me.
Speaker:Same.
Speaker:What do we take away from that?
Speaker:Well, maybe he's right.
Speaker:Maybe my arguments are ridiculous and make no sense whatsoever.
Speaker:But I've received enough unsolicited positive feedback to feel confident
Speaker:that my arguments have some merit.
Speaker:Scott, even though you started the episode by saying, I think I'm going to
Speaker:agree with Ken Reilly on this would you agree with him that they were ridiculous?
Speaker:No, I don't.
Speaker:Right.
Speaker:It's...
Speaker:I don't agree with that.
Speaker:Right.
Speaker:You know, I still don't agree with your arguments, but I was talking to Anne Reid
Speaker:about you when she was at one of my drink sessions and all that sort of stuff.
Speaker:We were talking about China and Russia and that type of thing, and she said
Speaker:that listening to Trevor, you can't help but agree with his arguments, but
Speaker:at the end of the, at the end of the, at the end of the argument and that
Speaker:sort of stuff, you've still got to turn around and disagree with him polis polis.
Speaker:So anyway, it's just...
Speaker:And I'm perfectly comfortable with that.
Speaker:I really don't have a problem with that.
Speaker:Yeah, I understand that.
Speaker:It's one of those things, I don't agree that your arguments were ridiculous.
Speaker:I didn't, I didn't agree with any of them, but you had some very
Speaker:logical, valid reasons for them.
Speaker:So.
Speaker:And I think what happens is.
Speaker:Where's your humanity, Trevor?
Speaker:Yep.
Speaker:So what I think this comes down to is a recognition of, of the premise.
Speaker:And Cam's inability to recognise that.
Speaker:I'll get on to that, but so, So yeah, look, I think Cam's
Speaker:one of the great thinkers.
Speaker:Like, he's been very influential, in my thinking, on various things.
Speaker:So, and often he will say, on a particular matter, you know, he's got no dog in
Speaker:the fight, you know, often he's talking about historical matters or whatever or
Speaker:the USA or whatever and he'll say, he just goes where the evidence leads him.
Speaker:And, that's how I feel in this debate, like, a yes vote would not have made
Speaker:the slightest difference to my life.
Speaker:Like, I don't look at it and go, this has any personal effect on me.
Speaker:It's really just, where does the evidence and the ideas and the morals lead me.
Speaker:And believe me, dear listener, it would have been much easier.
Speaker:A long time ago, to just agree with the left wing zeitgeist
Speaker:and go, Yeah, it's a good idea.
Speaker:Let's do it.
Speaker:That's just not how I, that's not the conclusion I came to.
Speaker:Although it would have been incredibly easier for me, because
Speaker:I knew that these sorts of conflicts with people would arise.
Speaker:Like, it's just inevitable.
Speaker:So, I think that Cam's adopted a premise of helping the downtrodden,
Speaker:and he didn't see or value my premise of colourblind equality.
Speaker:That was the purpose of all of that other stuff that we've just led up to.
Speaker:Also on this particular topic, I don't think Cam read deeply
Speaker:enough, and what he did was he trusted the prevailing left wing.
Speaker:You, and he said as much because he basically he said that his heuristic
Speaker:is that on many issues where you just don't have time to examine all of the
Speaker:detail and look at all of the issues in depth and read all of the papers,
Speaker:you have to find the people and the institutions that you trust and what do
Speaker:they say and then follow their advice.
Speaker:So for example, climate change.
Speaker:Who amongst us has the time to read all of the scientific papers and figure
Speaker:out the nuts and bolts of climate change, but when we've told repeatedly
Speaker:that 97 percent of scientists agree on climate change, then we go, okay.
Speaker:That'll do me.
Speaker:And I don't have to read all that stuff.
Speaker:Like, that's not a bad heuristic in that sort of situation.
Speaker:But they would argue that 90 percent of Aboriginals wanted the voice.
Speaker:Yes.
Speaker:And whilst 90 percent of Aboriginals may be an expert in being Aboriginal,
Speaker:I don't know that they're an expert in what is best for the nation as a whole.
Speaker:Correct.
Speaker:Correct.
Speaker:Or even for themselves.
Speaker:Because...
Speaker:Cam basically had you know, when I do meet with Cam, I am going to have one complete,
Speaker:you know, I don't, anyone can disagree with me, that's not a problem I will have
Speaker:an issue and say, you know, you call my arguments ridiculous, you could have at
Speaker:least said what they are, like, and then said they were ridiculous, like, anybody
Speaker:listening to that podcast just doesn't know what my argument was, it's just
Speaker:only that it's ridiculous, so it would be nice if he could have at least He just
Speaker:paraphrased what they were and then stated that he thought they were ridiculous.
Speaker:But in any event, he gave two reasons for voting yes.
Speaker:And they were that Indigenous people asked for it.
Speaker:That was his first reason.
Speaker:Now, the ironic part of this is, it his comments about my, my thoughts were at the
Speaker:close to the end of a two hour podcast.
Speaker:The first 90 minutes were talking about the creation of the state
Speaker:of Israel and the history of it.
Speaker:Which was basically Jews wanted a state of Israel and we gave it to them.
Speaker:And that was a mistake.
Speaker:Like, that was essentially what the first 90 minutes of the podcast was.
Speaker:That an oppressed people wanted something, and giving them what they
Speaker:wanted proved to be an enormous mistake.
Speaker:Yet in arguing for the yes vote, Cam says, an oppressed group of people want
Speaker:something and that's good enough for me.
Speaker:And I just like, can't you see a little bit of a problem here?
Speaker:I don't think giving the Jews a A nation was the mistake.
Speaker:The mistake was giving it to them on land that was already owned by somebody else.
Speaker:And that's what they wanted.
Speaker:They wanted the land in Palestine.
Speaker:So they wanted that block of land over there.
Speaker:That's what they wanted.
Speaker:And that ultimately wasn't a good idea for anybody.
Speaker:So, it just strikes me as ironic that that his first argument in favour of the yes
Speaker:vote was that Indigenous people want this.
Speaker:The end.
Speaker:Just because an oppressed people want something, isn't always a good idea.
Speaker:Primary example, Israel, and the state of Israel, which you've just been
Speaker:talking about for an hour and a half.
Speaker:The second thing he said was that Okay, if you don't have time to
Speaker:examine these topics, and he's a busy man, he's got other things to do,
Speaker:and he didn't get into the nuts and bolts of this argument like we have.
Speaker:Was, you know, trust people with longstanding that you've learnt over
Speaker:time to trust and what's their position.
Speaker:And he said, you know, this is a sort of a, a social issue, human rights issue.
Speaker:Who are the groups who know that shit?
Speaker:And he said, well, the Human Rights Commission and Amnesty.
Speaker:So in groups like that Come out in favour of a yes vote, then
Speaker:for somebody with limited time to examine all of the details, then
Speaker:that's what he's going to go with.
Speaker:And just for fun, I thought, I'll just look up what the Human
Speaker:Rights Commission actually said.
Speaker:You guys know that the Human Rights Commissioner, Lorraine Finlay,
Speaker:said, quote, The draft wording.
Speaker:Inserts race into the Australian Constitution in a way that undermines
Speaker:the foundational human rights principles of equality and non discrimination.
Speaker:And creates constitutional uncertainty in terms of its interpretation and operation.
Speaker:That's what the head of the Human Rights Commission actually said.
Speaker:Now guess what?
Speaker:The Human Rights Commission itself came out with a completely different statement.
Speaker:So the Commissioner and the Commission are at odds.
Speaker:Loggerheads and Poles Apart.
Speaker:And guess what?
Speaker:Lorraine Finlay was a conservative government appointment and former
Speaker:Human Rights Commissioners have come out and said they disagree with
Speaker:her and the Commission itself does.
Speaker:But my point is the actual Commissioner came out with an argument that's
Speaker:pretty much my argument Okay, she was in a conservative government.
Speaker:Appointment that doesn't necessarily reflect the Human
Speaker:Rights Commission's position.
Speaker:But maybe that all demonstrates that maybe the Human Rights Commission isn't as solid
Speaker:on this issue as you might think they are.
Speaker:But no group is going to be the expert on the voice.
Speaker:Because the voice is not just about human rights.
Speaker:It's about, how do we organise a society?
Speaker:How do we, how do we deal with...
Speaker:The best way of creating a cooperative, harmonious community
Speaker:where, you know, is equality an important factor in that or not?
Speaker:And you know, I don't think there is a group that was an expert on the voice.
Speaker:You had to shop around a number of different areas.
Speaker:Anyway so, so yeah, that was, you know.
Speaker:A wrap up of, of that, and, you know, these are the sorts of discussions and
Speaker:conflicts and things that we knew was going to happen with this whole voice
Speaker:argument, and Joe, months ago you and I, at one point, I think Scott was around, we
Speaker:were like, okay, we're going to talk about the voice now, let's go ahead and do it.
Speaker:And, and somebody wrote in to say...
Speaker:Our hand wringing over potentially being called racist was pitiful, but
Speaker:it's precisely this sort of shit that you and I were worried about as just
Speaker:opening this sort of can of worms and, I
Speaker:have a dream where everyone is treated based on their...
Speaker:Content of their character, not the colour of their skin.
Speaker:Now, if you said that in the current age, that would be deemed racist.
Speaker:Yes.
Speaker:And that, to me, just seems bizarre.
Speaker:You'd be told, if you were using that argument for a no vote,
Speaker:that you've somehow abused the memory of Martin Luther King.
Speaker:We're in some Orwellian doublespeak when it comes to these things.
Speaker:And there'll be a good piece by Guy Rundle on this.
Speaker:But you know, the other thing was I got an email from a listener who's listened to...
Speaker:Probably hundreds of hours of me talking on this podcast, who said, you know, I
Speaker:don't know you very well, I'm not sure if you're a racist, blah, blah, blah.
Speaker:And I'm like, man, after all this time, if you think I'm a
Speaker:racist, you know, thanks a lot.
Speaker:So these are the sorts of things that we knew were going to fly.
Speaker:I think, I think we need to recognise that we can.
Speaker:Agree on an outcome and disagree on how we're going to get to that outcome.
Speaker:Yeah.
Speaker:And we can agree to be, to be labelled as anti something just because we're
Speaker:agree, we disagree on the method.
Speaker:And we've got to recognise people have different premises
Speaker:that, with different levels of importance that they attach to it.
Speaker:And if you don't understand the other person's underlying premise, then don't
Speaker:engage in the debate until you do.
Speaker:Because he's just doing a disservice to everybody.
Speaker:But any comments on that before I move on to Guy Rundle?
Speaker:Scott?
Speaker:No?
Speaker:No?
Speaker:No?
Speaker:Fair enough.
Speaker:Okay.
Speaker:Guy Rundle.
Speaker:So Guy Rundle oh, what else?
Speaker:Let me just let me just play also just the final thing from
Speaker:Final word from Cam on this one.
Speaker:This was his final bit.
Speaker:So, really, to all Australians who voted no, you should be fucking
Speaker:ashamed of yourselves, and I am ashamed for you on your behalf.
Speaker:I think that's just a failure to recognise that some people might have
Speaker:a premise that they see as important, that is a legitimate premise, and
Speaker:they see it as outweighing the premise that CAM's operating under.
Speaker:You know, the sort of implication from that is, you, Ashamed, let's
Speaker:face it, if you're just wrong on some issue, you can be stupid, but Ashamed,
Speaker:eh, it's leaning towards, Ashamed's hinting at other stuff, isn't it?
Speaker:Anyway.
Speaker:Well, you know, you could flip that script and say Cam should be
Speaker:ashamed, he was voting to entrench racism in the Constitution.
Speaker:Yes, that's right.
Speaker:Now I think that's a bad faith, it's a bad faith argument and I wouldn't
Speaker:go there, but effectively that is the equivalent of what he's doing.
Speaker:I think that's a bad faith argument.
Speaker:Yeah.
Speaker:So, but, okay.
Speaker:Now this is not uncommon with the reaction to the result of the referendum.
Speaker:And Guy Rundle, who is a lefty.
Speaker:Writing and Crikey had this to say.
Speaker:The refusal of this by the electorate has made the cultural producer elite,
Speaker:the core of the knowledge class, and its commentariat very, very angry.
Speaker:Their first move has been denial of the obvious truth.
Speaker:The yes campaign was a shambles.
Speaker:The second stage which began last week, was simple hatred and disdain directed
Speaker:at the mainstream of the country.
Speaker:I think we could include Cam as showing disdain at the mainstream
Speaker:of the country in his comment there.
Speaker:So Guy Rundle quotes Sean Kelly writing in The Age, and Sean Kelly said this, I've
Speaker:been struck by the widespread conclusion based on polling that Australians
Speaker:were persuaded by the argument that the voice would divide the country.
Speaker:Voters may well say this was what persuaded them, but it is likely that
Speaker:most were instinctively against the idea.
Speaker:Of the reasons they were able to choose between, to justify their choice,
Speaker:this one sounded most attractive.
Speaker:Guy Rundle goes on, Well, the voice would divide the country.
Speaker:That is its intent.
Speaker:This was the great blind spot of the Yes campaign.
Speaker:Run with to the end, the division between Indigenous peoples and non Indigenous
Speaker:Australians was essential to recognition.
Speaker:It was the enactment of recognition.
Speaker:We weren't creating a voice, a separate assembly for, say, the benefits
Speaker:dependent disabled, whose powerlessness, invisibility and suffering would
Speaker:match that of many Indigenous groups.
Speaker:We proposed to specifically recognise The separateness of Indigenous
Speaker:peoples by recognising no other social groups as requiring or deserving
Speaker:a voice assembly of their own.
Speaker:This was the essential mechanism of the voice.
Speaker:The yes case, that this was really a higher unity arising from the
Speaker:imposition of division was gobbledygook and sussed by the mainstream as such.
Speaker:I agree with that entirely.
Speaker:He goes on.
Speaker:That just goes to show that being educated doesn't make you smart.
Speaker:The voice wasn't a right wrong answer.
Speaker:It's not exams which progressives love and everyone else hates.
Speaker:It's not how the contents of thought differ.
Speaker:It's the form of thinking that differs, and the different moral
Speaker:systems that arise from that.
Speaker:I think that's kind of referring to what I was just talking
Speaker:about with moral premises.
Speaker:Will this utter debacle for progressives serve as some sort of wake up call
Speaker:to editors and proprietors of these publications that, for the good of
Speaker:the country in general and left and genuinely progressive and liberal
Speaker:thinking in particular, they must create centres of forthright and uncompromising
Speaker:debate so that ideas and strategies are genuinely tested against reality
Speaker:before being applied to the world?
Speaker:Well dear listener, this little podcast is your little centre of...
Speaker:Forthright and uncompromising debate I like to think.
Speaker:Yeah, it's dead right.
Speaker:This is the gobbledygook, doublespeak, Orwellian talk.
Speaker:That this was a, an inclusiveness, it was a divisiveness.
Speaker:I think Guy Rundle's put it quite accurately.
Speaker:But, you know, other people say that the shrill voice...
Speaker:of the yes vote is saying, if you voted no, it had to
Speaker:be because you were a racist.
Speaker:That's just not the case.
Speaker:Yeah, we've seen that elsewhere with the College Admissions in America, where
Speaker:Asians are now being limited to a certain percentage of the population, the campus.
Speaker:And the argument is to right historical wrongs, but historically the Asians
Speaker:were just as oppressed as the Blacks.
Speaker:But now they're succeeding, and so their numbers need to be limited.
Speaker:And it seems the exact opposite of trying to right past wrongs.
Speaker:Such dangerous territory.
Speaker:Treaty.
Speaker:Now, in Queensland it was policy of both the LNP and Labor to sort
Speaker:of negotiate forwards for a treaty.
Speaker:The Liberal LNP leader, Christopher Lee, came out and said, well, in light
Speaker:of the referendum, particularly in Queensland we're going to listen to
Speaker:the people and when it's no longer our policy to try to negotiate a treaty.
Speaker:And, Alice Shea was quite clever, I think, Scott, when she said,
Speaker:well, if we can't get bipartisan support, then we'll have to drop it.
Speaker:So sorry.
Speaker:Yeah, I agree wholeheartedly with you.
Speaker:It's one of those things.
Speaker:I just thought to myself that she had no choice, because the LNP
Speaker:would have wedged her with it.
Speaker:If it came down to an election issue, which it possibly could have,
Speaker:then she would have been out there on her own and that sort of stuff,
Speaker:arguing against what was basically the will of the people up here.
Speaker:I think it was a godsend for her when the LNP withdrew, you know,
Speaker:bipartisan support, gave her an excuse to withdraw it as well.
Speaker:Apparently a lot of the left are not happy about that.
Speaker:Sorry, Joe.
Speaker:I was about to say, I think the LNP have recognised that this is
Speaker:a fault line along political lines and that they can exploit that.
Speaker:And so yes, maybe she was right to disengage, but I don't see why the
Speaker:state couldn't do something that the federal government couldn't.
Speaker:Well...
Speaker:Assuming that both sides wanted to.
Speaker:Yeah, but when both sides don't want to...
Speaker:I think she's probably right.
Speaker:I think you've hit the nail right on the head, Trevor.
Speaker:If you don't have, if you don't have the support on both sides of the aisle,
Speaker:then you've got to walk away from it.
Speaker:Yeah, I think that's a fair...
Speaker:You know, I mean, she, she can, she can still have it as a Labor Party policy and
Speaker:all that sort of stuff, but she should actually just say what she said, that
Speaker:is, that we're not going to pursue it.
Speaker:Because Frank Brennan, I don't know if it came out in one of those
Speaker:clips, but he accused the, the organizers of, of this, of playing...
Speaker:Roulette with people's emotions, in that they, they worked them up to an
Speaker:expectation of a victory in a situation that was doomed because it was no longer
Speaker:bipartisan, and I think Alice Shea would be doing the same if she pig headedly
Speaker:proceeded with it and ran with it when it's doomed to failure, that's, that's
Speaker:not, that would be doing a disservice to people, to get their hopes up and
Speaker:then have them sort of told that if people reject this, it's because they're
Speaker:racist, and then people reject it and they go, oh shit, everyone's a racist.
Speaker:So, yeah, so.
Speaker:I mean in theory you could start negotiations.
Speaker:You could get part of the way there.
Speaker:But yes, until the LNP are on side, then you're not going to get anywhere.
Speaker:You could have the beginnings of negotiations, but you couldn't reach
Speaker:a conclusion where you could say, we're taking this to Parliament.
Speaker:Yes.
Speaker:Yep.
Speaker:Because, you know, the Tories, before it was a win government,
Speaker:now they've just rolled out.
Speaker:Yeah.
Speaker:Yeah.
Speaker:So, anyway, thinking of things moving forward, there was a a joint media
Speaker:release on the 17th of October.
Speaker:Huh.
Speaker:Linda Burney, Jason Clare, Marion Skimgore, and Australian and Northern
Speaker:Territory Governments have directed officials to conduct an assessment
Speaker:of boarding school options and capacity in Central Australia.
Speaker:This will be conducted by the National Indigenous Australians
Speaker:Agency, the Commonwealth Department of Education and the Northern
Speaker:Territory Department of Education.
Speaker:All relevant stakeholders, including the Central Australian Aboriginal Leadership
Speaker:Group, the Central Australian Regional Controller, and local schools, which
Speaker:may be seeking to establish or expand accommodation options, will be consulted.
Speaker:So, it's looking at boarding school options in Central Australia.
Speaker:Minister Burney said, listening to the views of people in Central
Speaker:Australia is an important step and is consistent with the approach we're
Speaker:taking in our plan for a better, safer future for Central Australia.
Speaker:Minister Clare said this is about working with local schools and
Speaker:local Indigenous leaders to make sure students have the support
Speaker:they need to reach their potential.
Speaker:Similar wording from Southern Mississauga.
Speaker:That's how the system has been working and will continue to work.
Speaker:When there's a project like this that they're considering, consult
Speaker:with the stakeholders, get their opinions, formulate a policy.
Speaker:Like that's what's been going on and will go on.
Speaker:So this argument that Indigenous people have not been listened
Speaker:to, this is the sort of thing that's been going on all the time.
Speaker:Ah.
Speaker:Guys, that's over an hour already.
Speaker:I don't know.
Speaker:Sorry?
Speaker:All the time.
Speaker:Historically, I don't know if that was true, but certainly recently it's true.
Speaker:Yeah, OK.
Speaker:Not 50 years ago.
Speaker:Yep.
Speaker:You know what?
Speaker:We could talk about Gaza, but, eh, might save it for next week.
Speaker:Because I've got a feeling not a lot's going to happen between now and then.
Speaker:And, no, it appears that the Israelis are balking at their land invasion of Gaza.
Speaker:Does it, the Yanks are telling the Yeah.
Speaker:The, the Yanks are telling them to hold off and that sort of thing.
Speaker:They're doing what they're told.
Speaker:Yeah.
Speaker:Apparently the Yanks are gonna put some more equipment on the ground and that
Speaker:sort of stuff, so they're actually telling them to wait until that's all set up.
Speaker:Right.
Speaker:But
Speaker:hang on, you're still there.
Speaker:It's things, I think the, I think it could actually blow up into a full
Speaker:scale war in the region actually.
Speaker:Yeah.
Speaker:So I, and the question is whether that was the intent.
Speaker:was to provoke Israel into overreacting to lead to a fracturing of the understandings
Speaker:that Israel has come to with other Arab nations, particularly Saudi Arabia.
Speaker:Yeah, yeah, for sure.
Speaker:I mean, you know, it's one of those things, because apparently
Speaker:Saudi Arabia's pulled the pin on negotiating a normalization of
Speaker:relations with Israel, you know?
Speaker:I've got actually I will do a little bit, because in case it gets a bit
Speaker:old, I've got the Essential Report.
Speaker:I was polling people about the polling Australians about Australia's involvement
Speaker:with the Israel Palestine conflict.
Speaker:So, so I've got on the screen the question was, in terms of the current
Speaker:conflict in Israel and Palestine, what do you think Australia should do?
Speaker:And the answers were...
Speaker:Provide active assistance to Israel, or stay out of the conflict entirely, or
Speaker:provide active assistance to Palestine.
Speaker:And what did Australians say?
Speaker:Well, 23 percent said give assistance to Israel, 13 percent said give assistance to
Speaker:Palestine, and 64 percent stay out of it.
Speaker:So that was the overall response.
Speaker:What do you reckon gender would be?
Speaker:I'd say mostly women would say stay out of it.
Speaker:Hmm.
Speaker:In, yes, men slightly more positive about assistance to Israel.
Speaker:So 26 percent of men wanted to assist Israel, 21 percent of
Speaker:females wanted to assist Israel.
Speaker:And they were both sort of 13 and 14 percent when it came to
Speaker:assisting Palestine, so men a bit more inclined to assist Israel.
Speaker:Guys, what do you reckon the age Would young people be more likely to assist
Speaker:Israel or Palestine and would old people.
Speaker:Palestine.
Speaker:Okay.
Speaker:And old people, Israel.
Speaker:Okay.
Speaker:Old, old people.
Speaker:Israel.
Speaker:Okay.
Speaker:'cause it, it's down to politics.
Speaker:Here we go, Joe.
Speaker:Well done.
Speaker:So in terms of assisting Israel, if you're 55 plus 30% of Australians wanted
Speaker:to do that and only 2 percent of over 55s wanted to support Palestine, OK?
Speaker:But in the younger age group, the 18 to 34s, more people
Speaker:wanted to assist Palestine.
Speaker:So 25 percent wanted to assist Palestine.
Speaker:Only 20 percent Israel.
Speaker:So there we go.
Speaker:Our community divided by age, yet again.
Speaker:Guys?
Speaker:Voting intention?
Speaker:Which party?
Speaker:Follow age.
Speaker:Okay, so Greens voters, Palestine?
Speaker:Yep.
Speaker:Liberal Nationals?
Speaker:Let's see what the answer is.
Speaker:And let's go, yeah.
Speaker:Coalition voters, 34 percent want to support Israel and
Speaker:only 9 percent Palestine.
Speaker:Whereas in the Greens, 24 percent for Palestine.
Speaker:And 18 percent for Israel.
Speaker:Now, interesting isn't it, Joe, you were talking earlier about indicators
Speaker:that are seemingly divorced from politics, but are just a guideline
Speaker:as to political affiliation.
Speaker:Yes.
Speaker:And, and this is a classic sort of example, isn't it, that that
Speaker:we were able to pick allegiances.
Speaker:on those groups based on those figures, on those things, so, yeah there we go.
Speaker:So, interesting.
Speaker:We'll see how, see how community opinion changes over time with that one.
Speaker:So, right, well, Joe of Devon and Scott of the Tropics that's
Speaker:enough for one episode, I reckon.
Speaker:All the people in the chat room, thanks for your participation.
Speaker:That was good.
Speaker:We'll be back with something next week.
Speaker:Talk to you then.
Speaker:Bye for now.
Speaker:And it's a good night from me.
Speaker:And it's a good night from him.
Speaker:Good night.
