Latest / Uncomfortable Conversations with Josh Szeps / Jack Latimore: What The Voice Referendum Really Means

Transcript

Jack Latimore: What The Voice Referendum Really Means · Uncomfortable Conversations with Josh Szeps

• 0:00
  Good day, humans. Welcome to Safe Space for Dangerous Ideas.
• 0:06
  And here's a big dangerous idea that every single Australian man, woman, and child, not child, they can't vote.
• 0:13
  Man, and woman, and other, non-man, woman, man, she, man, and all of the voting people in Australia will soon be asked,
• 0:22
  they required to vote on. The idea that Australia should change its constitution to create a formal body in which First Nations Australians could express their will, their opinion on bills that may come before the parliament that affect First Nations people.
• 0:42
  This would be a very, very big deal, and it's not very, very often that Australia comes together to try to change its founding document, or that any country comes together to try to hold a national referendum to change its founding document.
• 0:57
  So I thought it would be time to speak to someone who understands this issue better than anyone. Jack Latimore is the Aboriginal Affairs journalist at the age, and the City Money Herald newspaper, these are the large broad sheets in Australia,
• 1:16
  and can give us the most impartial understanding of all of the people who I know, of the pros and cons, the yeses and the nose, the facts and the fictions which he's been studying about this proposal.
• 1:31
  A little bit of background first. First Nations Australians are the oldest continuous civilization in the world.
• 1:42
  There are a great many different nations on the land mass and the waters and islands of Australia, and therefore it has not historically been a simple question of like, oh, let's just make a treaty.
• 1:57
  Not that there's ever been a huge push for a treaty, but to the extent that there was, it's not been like, for example, the First Nations people in New Zealand, the Māori, who are much, much more recent and much more ethnically homogenous as a people with whom one could negotiate.
• 2:14
  So we find ourselves in 2023 in a situation. We have these civilizations of vast complexity and geographic diversity and ethnic and linguistic diversity across this enormous land mass, and the attempt to try to get our arms around the needs of these communities is to establish this body.
• 2:38
  The idea of which it comes out of, the Uluru Statement of the Heart, that was a constitutional convention which ended with this statement called the Uluru Statement from the Heart.
• 2:50
  This took place in 2017, a national constitutional convention, to really try to seriously address and reckon with Australia's genocidal founding sins.
• 3:05
  And more importantly, perhaps, to actually address the disadvantage and the lived reality of what it means to be a First Nations person in Australia, which generally means that you are subjected to all kinds of disadvantage that other communities are not.
• 3:22
  You don't live as long, your water is likely to be dirtier, you're likely to have less access to health care, you're likely to have less access to housing. There are, across a whole number of metrics, Australia is performing woefully in terms of its treatment of indigenous Australians.
• 3:38
  That's just a statistical kind of demographic reality that has proved incredibly intransigent for decades. Well, for centuries, except nobody in power cared about it until decades ago.
• 3:52
  And even since they have started caring about it, they're attempted remedies, as Jack will explain, have fallen short.
• 4:01
  You'll hear Jack talk about closing the gap. This is a lingo in Australia that if you're not Australian, you may not be familiar with.
• 4:08
  It's just about closing the gap between indigenous outcomes and non-indigenous outcomes in Australia across all of those kinds of metrics, so measurable ways of closing, for example, the gap between life expectancy and so on.
• 4:23
  So the Uluru statement from the heart, have a listen to it. I want you to hear Professor Megan Davis, who was a member of the Referendum Council in 2017, when they finally come together, they hammered together this statement. It's not very long. It's a few minutes long, three or four minutes long.
• 4:38
  They hammered together this statement that basically encapsulates the past, present and future of how they see First Nations people in Australia. Here's Professor Megan Davis for the first time in history on the floor of the First Nations Constitutional Convention in 2017.
• 4:55
  The Uluru statement from the heart, we gathered here at the 2017 National Constitutional Convention, coming from all points of the southern sky, make this statement from the heart.
• 5:11
  Our Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander tribes were the first sovereign nations of the Australian continent, and it's adjacent islands, and possessed it under our own laws and customs.
• 5:24
  This, our ancestors did, according to the reckoning of our culture from the creation, according to the common law from time immemorial, and according to science more than 60,000 years ago.
• 5:43
  This sovereignty is a spiritual notion, the ancestral tie between the land or mother nature, and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples who were born there from, remain attached there too, and must one day return wither to be united with our ancestors.
• 6:05
  This link is the basis of the ownership of the soil or better of sovereignty. It has never been seeded or extinguished, and coexist with the sovereignty of the crown.
• 6:23
  How could it be otherwise that peoples possessed a land for 60 millennia, and this sacred link disappears from world history in merely the last 200 years?
• 6:35
  With substantive constitutional change and structural reform, we believe this ancient sovereignty can shine through as a fuller expression of Australia's nationhood.
• 6:50
  Proportionally, we are the most incarcerated people on the planet. We are not an innately criminal people.
• 7:00
  Our children are alien from their families at unprecedented rates. This cannot be because we have no love for them.
• 7:10
  And our youth languish in detention and obscene numbers. They should be our hope for the future.
• 7:21
  These dimensions of our crisis tell plainly the structural nature of our problem. This is the torment of our powerlessness.
• 7:35
  We seek constitutional reforms to empower our people and take a rightful place in our own country.
• 7:45
  When we have power over our destiny, our children will flourish. They will walk in two worlds, and their culture will be a gift to their country.
• 8:00
  We call for the establishment of a First Nations voice enshrined in the Constitution.
• 8:08
  Macarada is the culmination of our agenda, the coming together after a struggle.
• 8:16
  It captures our aspirations for a fair and truthful relationship with the people of Australia and a better future for our children based on justice and self-determination.
• 8:28
  We seek a Macarada Commission to supervise a process of agreement-making between governments and First Nations and truth-telling about our history.
• 8:42
  In 1967, we were counted. In 2017, we seek to be heard.
• 8:50
  We leave base camp and start our track across this vast country. We invite you to walk with us in a movement of the Australian people for a better future.
• 9:03
  There you have it. Professor Megan Davis, a member of the Referendum Council, reading out the Uluru statement from the heart for the first time on the floor of the First Nations Constitutional Convention in 2017.
• 9:14
  You will have heard her say we call for the establishment of a First Nations voice enshrined in the Constitution a voice, meaning in practice a formal body which will have First Nations representatives on it, which will make representations to Parliament.
• 9:31
  It can be overruled. In fact, I will read to you now what we are actually voting on in this referendum.
• 9:40
  The referendum question on October 14th will be you will have to say yes or no to this question.
• 9:50
  A proposed law to alter the Constitution to recognize the First Peoples of Australia by establishing an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander voice. Do you approve this proposed alteration?
• 10:00
  And you will say yes or you will say no. That's a little say on the referendum.
• 10:05
  Now, what's the actual amendment? What would the Constitution actually be changed?
• 10:11
  So the insertion, the phrase that would be inserted into the Constitution would read as follows.
• 10:20
  Chapter 9, recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, 129 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander voice.
• 10:27
  And it would say in recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia and then it'll list three points.
• 10:36
  One, there shall be a body to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander voice.
• 10:46
  Two, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander voice may make representations to the Parliament and the Executive Government of the Commonwealth on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.
• 11:04
  Three, the Parliament shall subject to this Constitution, have the power to make laws with respect to matters relating to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander voice, including its composition, functions, powers and procedures.
• 11:22
  So that's the amendment. Point 1 says we bring into being this body of First Nations people and we're calling it the voice.
• 11:32
  Point 2 says if that body wants to, it can make representations, recommendations, advice to two of these, two of the branches of government, the Parliament and then the Executive.
• 11:46
  On the matters relating to First Nations Australians and then Point 3 is that the Parliament is still the body that has the power to figure out what the voice is.
• 11:57
  The voice doesn't have any power to decide how many people it has or how it constitutes or how much it gets paid or whatever.
• 12:03
  Point 3 says the Parliament has the power to make laws regarding that thing.
• 12:08
  Now you will note in none of those three points does it say anything about the Parliament or the Executive being obliged to listen to the voice.
• 12:18
  It just says that there's going to be a body called the voice. The voice may make representations to the government about issues that affect First Nations people and that the Parliament will have the power to make laws about this body.
• 12:33
  But it can't get rid of the body because the body's establishment is in the Constitution. That's what we're voting on.
• 12:40
  Now nothing is simple, especially when it comes to difficult issues like race.
• 12:50
  And so it has gone initially perhaps back in sort of 2017 at the time of the Constitutional Convention from being a question of like, here is our request as Indigenous people.
• 13:03
  Please citizens of Goodwill in Australia come along with us and follow us into the future.
• 13:12
  And it has changed from that into, well, maybe the voice isn't enough. Maybe it's too much. Maybe we as First Nations people actually should be asking for things that are more detailed and on the ground like improvements in conditions and closing the gap rather than this sort of a bureaucratic body that could get co-opted by special interest anyway.
• 13:38
  Or maybe why are we bothering with a bureaucratic body when the whole artifice of Parliament and the executive and the Australian state are all founded on the blood of genocide anyway and they haven't recognized sovereignty officially and we should really have a treaty and it's becoming a cacophony.
• 13:57
  It's becoming an unhelpful cacophony and I just want you to listen to Jack and anyone else who you want to listen to who is measured and well informed about this.
• 14:10
  I'm not proposing a particular position one way or another on whether this referendum is a good idea or a bad idea.
• 14:18
  I just want whatever the decision that people make to be one that is based on reason and not based on bullshit.
• 14:28
  So without further ado, please enjoy the one and only Jack Lattermore.
• 14:36
  Can you take us back Jack before to sort of what led to the voice to Parliament in the first place because there'll be some people listening to this who are super in the weeds of it and then some people who might live abroad who hearing about it for the first time.
• 14:58
  What's the genesis of it?
• 15:00
  How far do you want to go back as will you the question to answer the question?
• 15:05
  Some less than 60,000 years.
• 15:07
  Okay, yeah, all right, I don't know if you had that far but look, it's been around the thinking of it and various forms of a representational body has been there for at least well, 67 definitely.
• 15:26
  1967 was the most referendum that dealt with this.
• 15:30
  Well, it didn't deal with this issue.
• 15:33
  That was a different subject matter.
• 15:35
  I mean, the question that Australia has had posture towards its first nation people.
• 15:40
  Yeah, around that period, there were bodies like Fikasi and I don't know the acronyms.
• 15:48
  I don't ask me to pull that one apart, but it was, you know, Aboriginal advancement or Aboriginal rights advancement group, but it was largely steered by, you know, white follows.
• 16:02
  So from about 67, we start to see the self determination, which went by, you know, black power.
• 16:11
  Same thing, same, same.
• 16:13
  Really, you know, arrive in Australia and Aboriginal people begin to take hold of the wheel and, you know, these sorts of organisations.
• 16:25
  And then you had a number of these representational bodies come up.
• 16:31
  None of them were enshrined. That's the big difference.
• 16:34
  None of them were enshrined in the constitution.
• 16:37
  You know, there was a succession of them and a swap and change, which with each incoming government.
• 16:44
  So, yeah, like, you know, early 70s after Whitlam sort of brought in, that's considered to be the start of the self determination period.
• 16:55
  And that continued as known as the recognized as a self determination period for, you know, some decades.
• 17:05
  And really kind of only changed when we're looking at the reign of John Howard coming in, I would say.
• 17:15
  And yeah, periods before that were like protectionist periods, assimilation periods. So there's a few that are kind of.
• 17:23
  And what changed during the Howard government? So that was for non-Australians, John Howard was a long serving conservative prime minister who served during the, I guess it overlapped mostly with the George W. Bush administration in the United States.
• 17:40
  What changed towards First Nations Australians then?
• 17:44
  Well, they weren't real keen on self determination very much. There was a body called at sick, which is Aboriginal Torres Strait Islander commission. I think at sick.
• 17:58
  That was a representative body, democratically elected to some extent. And kind of, it's tricky to get a bead on exactly how it was.
• 18:11
  Whether there was goodwill towards it from Aboriginal community, I'm talking about. You're kind of getting a range of opinions across the spectrum there, but generally speaking.
• 18:23
  It was considered a good thing and useful. But the Howard government went about dismantling it over a period until it finally with the support of the Labor government needs to be added.
• 18:37
  I pulled the pin on it in, I want to say, 2005. And from that point on, and at sick was kind of like the last one of that succession of representational bodies that I've talked about before.
• 18:56
  Well, you did have the Congress National Congress of Aboriginal Torres Strait Islanders that came later, but same, same, but different.
• 19:06
  But with pulling the pin on at sick, that really started to get Aboriginal people thinking that one of these bodies needed to be developed established in a way that it couldn't easily be knocked over by any incoming government.
• 19:25
  Right. And then it's trying to get into the Constitution. So the thinking, the most current thinking probably goes back to about then.
• 19:36
  And then with, if you jump ahead a few years, around 2010, I think it was with Gillard coming in, she asked, well, she appointed an expert panel to explore a number of things around
• 19:54
  constitutional recognition. Some of the things they explored involved this indigenous voice idea. And then between 2011 through to the present, there was like a, again, a succession of reports, expert panels, joint select committees investigating the idea.
• 20:15
  So yeah, it's been around, it's safe to say that this proposed model of the indigenous voice has been thrashed around to and fro for over 15 years, probably getting close to 20.
• 20:32
  And Jack, this idea of, so let's just look at the end of at sick for a moment, because it will be helpful in people understanding the rationale behind doing this as a referendum and a constitutional amendment rather than through legislature. So the criticism of, and just to fact check myself, John Howard was PM from 96 to 2007 at sick abolished in 2004, but actually, well, the law was passed in 2004.
• 20:59
  It was actually was abolished in 2005. And at the time, there was, there was criticism that this had become a very bureaucratic kind of centralized Canberra bureaucracy that didn't address the aspirations of, of First Nations people in regional Australia. Was there truth to that criticism? Or do you regard that as a fig leaf for getting rid of it?
• 21:22
  So that's, we're seeing the same thing now that same rhetoric now is what they deployed back then. And also surrounding the period where it was abolished.
• 21:34
  Similarly, today it could be argued there was a lot of disinformation around it being a corrupt corrupt body as well.
• 21:41
  None of those accusations and allegations are founded in fact, none of them. And in terms of it being a bureaucratic, you know, in cumbersome.
• 21:55
  You know, it varied. It was no more or less than other, you know, bodies or other organizations that were similar in size and nature to what it did.
• 22:06
  But, you know, the how government had it in for the idea of this body and potentially possibly some of the characters that were prominent on it in its last days.
• 22:20
  So yeah, they kind of, you know, went about dismantling it over months years until it got to the point where they pulled the pin on it.
• 22:31
  It was missed when it was gone. You know, I remember being in community probably around, there was that before it went to uni. So it would have been 91, 92.
• 22:43
  And it was considered favorably within those communities and had community leaders within those communities excited, enthusiastic about running as candidates.
• 23:02
  It was, you know, it was held in us. It was esteemed put it that way. If it wasn't hiring art, it was considered to have some esteem about it.
• 23:17
  But yeah, it kind of towards at the end, there was so much, I would say I described as disinformation,
• 23:27
  floating about in the media and parliament that, you know, the construed an image of it that was sticky enough to remain in the thinking of a lot of people.
• 23:41
  And as I said, none of the accusations and allegations about it ever proved to be true.
• 23:47
  I mean, I don't know what accusations or allegations you went up, we'd have to go through a litany. And I'm not interested in focusing on that sick that much. But just for the listen to be aware, there was a review that was commissioned by the Howard government in 2003.
• 23:59
  I don't know, I don't know the authors of that review, John Hennifer, Jackie Huggins, Bob Collins, and it recommended that more control should be given back to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in the regions.
• 24:13
  The indigenous affairs minister at the time, Amanda Vanstone said that that review, you know, basically shows that out sick hadn't been connecting well with indigenous Australians and wasn't serving them well.
• 24:24
  So we could pick it apart bit by bit, but there was a certain level of suspicion, not just among the government, but also among the people doing that review and among some indigenous Australians themselves about whether our sick was doing the best job that it could.
• 24:38
  Yeah, I mean, yeah, you got different communities that had representatives on it and some of those communities probably felt that other communities were being heard more by the board or by the, you know,
• 24:53
  the thrust of at sick. So, you know, you're always going to get that doesn't matter what organization, what complexion of the organization, but.
• 25:05
  So now this rationale for a representative body comes about and what and is he can you articulate for us what your understanding of the no campaigns before we get to the yes.
• 25:25
  Well, I mean, yes, I can. I mean, if we go with what is beginning to be called from some people, far be it for me to come up with these sort of things, but the elite no campaign.
• 25:41
  These are the terms that researchers are putting to it in their in their research.
• 25:48
  Their concern around it is, well, where do you want to start? I mean, lack of detail.
• 25:54
  What do we start with the two there are correct me if I'm wrong is I understand it broadly sort of two knows within First Nations Australians that struck me as almost being opposite critiques.
• 26:09
  One represented by people like Senator Lydia Thorpe, another represented by people like Senator Jacinta Price.
• 26:18
  And we can deal with the sort of white Australia objections to the referendum as well if you want later, but I'm more interested in your insights into where those two positions are coming from.
• 26:29
  Is that a way to frame it?
• 26:31
  Look, it could be. I mean, there are claims that Lydia Lydia has claimed herself that she leads a black sovereignty movement.
• 26:43
  That black sovereignty movement doesn't exist as a cohesive movement.
• 26:50
  I don't think that has been established as clearly as what it probably needs to be.
• 26:58
  The certainly Aboriginal people just put aside Lydia Thorpe, but certainly Aboriginal people in different communities out there that have what I would describe as legitimate apprehensions around a government policy stop, full stop.
• 27:20
  But when it comes to voice, they are skeptical because of past experiences of government policies, hoodwinking or attempting to hoodwink their aspirations and rights.
• 27:36
  Some of that is rooted in, you know, well, basically to go with the rhetoric from some of these groups that describe themselves as black sovereignty groups, which again, you'd kind of go look at a little bit more critically because when they talk about sovereignty, there's different understandings of what sovereignty is.
• 28:05
  And that's kind of a loosive in the conversation as well, a bit like Chase and Smoke.
• 28:13
  But yeah, just, you know, in general, there are the groups out there that are concerned that things like land justice should be more forth at the forefront than things like a voice.
• 28:29
  But, you know, these are views on who should be heading up or on representative of Aboriginal areas and communities at the expense of other identities that, you know.
• 28:49
  And so there's a fair bit of imported conspiracists thinking that has informed some of those groups, and I'm thinking in particular of sovereign citizen type conspiracy theories that, you know, it constitutional.
• 29:08
  I mean, this is a topic that we could stagger through for hours and none of it would be any clearer.
• 29:18
  And so if you listen to this show, I do tend to have a lot of staggering from topics for hours from getting nowhere.
• 29:24
  Yeah, I mean, this is, there's so many warrant holes.
• 29:28
  Well, let me, here's a, let me throw one case study at you that I thought was interesting.
• 29:34
  It was an ABC report from Garma and one of the characters who they were interviewing about the voice is this young bloke named Ben who was a, he's a, he's a First Nations Aussie and he was, he was an enthusiastic voice supporter.
• 29:50
  And now he's a hard, no, well, he was a reluctant supporter and now he's a hard, no.
• 29:55
  And he says this, he says quote, it's not born out of black ambition. It's born out of what's acceptable for constitutional conservatives.
• 30:01
  The idea that the people who stole this land and then who directly benefited from it are now going to have a referendum to think about recognizing the people they stole it off is insane.
• 30:11
  He says they say it's a first step like how mediocre is that for two hundred thirty five years plus of brutal subjugation it's not and we don't have time.
• 30:19
  And he says, you know, and then the reporter says, I mean, sure you may say that the referendum is too small and too slow under distraction from recognizing the inherent rights of First Nations people.
• 30:30
  That would underpin ongoing sovereignty, but the reporter says a no vote would, you know, would set it back and he says he doesn't think so.
• 30:38
  He says, you know, like a bushfire will come through and it'll ravage the entire scene that you come back to that site six months later and you see that green bursting through.
• 30:46
  That is as good a like an articulation as I've heard of that side of no, what do you make of it?
• 30:54
  As rubbish and I know Ben seen him up at gamma had a had a chat and all that so you know it's there's nothing personal in my assessment of that view but it doesn't stand up.
• 31:10
  If and I'm not advocating for or against but just purely in terms of your vote in the referendum but purely on what is most likely interpretation or perspective on what will unfold in either scenario.
• 31:28
  If the referendum is unsuccessful, there will be no other opportunity to establish a representative group, a representative body sorry in similar nature to what is being proposed.
• 31:48
  It won't be for decades and if you know it's a it's a worn track now, but if we look back to 99 with the Republic referendum that fell over for whatever reason you don't even have to go in there but it fell over and it hasn't been revisited yet.
• 32:08
  So it's generation if we consider a generation to be 20 years or whatever it's a generation before you ever see anything remotely come around maybe.
• 32:20
  I remember I remember Jack so I remember during the referendum the Republic referendum having an argument with a fellow republican I was at uni at the time and and she was saying well you know if she wanted to do a popular elected president she didn't like this model but she was republican and you know I don't know if you remember the slogan for the no campaign was.
• 32:42
  Let the people have their say meaning like you know let's have another kind of republic you don't need this elite republic let's have a one move the people have this say she said you know come around she's like you know give it it's inevitable give it you know another three years five years which do it again.
• 32:57
  It doesn't work like it doesn't work like that and I think that's a lot of people that I've heard express you know kind of buy into that we'll do it again that they are younger and I don't think they were you know of a conscious age if that's a term in 99 so they're not they're not coming from you know that sort of experiential background when they're talking about it.
• 33:24
  But it's like you're not going to see anything else and Dutton suggesting that there be you know another referendum done better if he wins the next election I don't think there's any substance to that and I mean the later of the conservative opposition party in Australia who's on the right wing of the right wing party.
• 33:46
  And yeah the idea that they would be enthusiastic about picking up this baton after it fails.
• 33:51
  It's like a referendum twice zero.
• 33:55
  It's not going to work and it was also a bad look because he's his captains pick a pointed shadow spokesperson for you know essentially Aboriginal affairs.
• 34:05
  And just into price was massive on the idea and was vocal about that so it was a bad look for the no cam no vote campaign.
• 34:15
  I thought over the last week or 10 days or whatever it's been but it's not going to happen getting back to the point and I don't think anything else come around whether it be you know in any other form and there's been a lot of different model.
• 34:34
  Options I guess what about a what about a treaty jack I mean one one side of you know one argument on this side of the of the First Nations no campaign is well the referendum might fail and you might not get another referendum but who why do where is it casting stone that you need a referendum.
• 34:50
  Why can't we have a treaty.
• 34:53
  Yeah yeah yeah it's weird that one in Victoria we've kind of had the benefit of observing the treaty process Victoria treaty process.
• 35:05
  Now what where's the best place to start I guess this is the first people's assembly of Victoria which is again a democratically elected representative body.
• 35:18
  It started three four years ago in the electoral process which is overseen by the Victorian electoral commission the you see.
• 35:31
  They didn't have a massive turnout by you know by standards that you know the broader public ballots may have.
• 35:41
  But it was a starting point and the last the most recent elections.
• 35:48
  This body is in its second iteration now as of I think it was April or May at this point for those elections they're going to larger turn out so it's kind of steadily building.
• 36:04
  They've Aboriginal people age 16 and above convotes so it's kind of recognizing that there's a broader population base that's younger so they're involved.
• 36:16
  But it's gradually climbing in terms of the participation number and you know this is how are these people participating Jack what are they.
• 36:26
  Just by voting just by enrolling and voting and so initially you know the numbers didn't look great but the way that you know you couldn't you couldn't sort of scrutinize them through the same lens as you would a broader ballot like a state election or a federal election or
• 36:43
  yeah right and what are they voting for how does that relate to a treaty.
• 36:46
  Well they vote for representatives from areas and these representatives they are part you know form part of the membership of the assembly body.
• 36:58
  Now for the first four years the assembly body was to establish the guidelines for a treaty for a treaty structure to put all the furniture in place.
• 37:12
  And then with this second iteration of the body which will sit for three or four years now their role is to negotiate the statewide treaty we're talking about is going to be a number of treaties for the statewide treaty will be negotiated by this assembly this democratically elected body.
• 37:30
  So when I hear people say don't matter about the referendum don't matter about the voice will just go straight to treaty by natural for responses was going to negotiate that they go well you know we'll just nominate some people from different areas they go okay what do you end up with there.
• 37:45
  Oh you know group of people what's that called sounds like like the voice.
• 37:51
  And like this common sense in it who's going to negotiate the treaty like we're talking a national treaty nationwide treaty who's going to negotiate that.
• 38:01
  And that's a voice why weren't there a series of steps that were kind of signed off on during the Uluru statement that said that you do the voice first and you have the body and then you progress towards a treaty.
• 38:15
  Yeah that was the thing that came from the Uluru statement and I think that was rooted in some logic or rationale that's in that restorative justice kind of approach to things that's worked internationally they didn't just pull it out thin air pretty sure that it was modeled on a number of you know case studies internationally.
• 38:41
  But yeah it's as I said it's common sense someone's going to negotiate a treaty so whoever or whatever you form or model it's going to negotiate that treaty that's starting to look a lot like what you know this model is suggesting is called the voice.
• 39:00
  And yeah I must say I am always baffled by the idea that if the referendum fails you'll be more likely to proceed to a treaty that succeeds like yeah it's a misunderstanding of human psychology I think and of just the end of the institutional inertia that exists in political systems and in in cultures.
• 39:22
  Well with you know as I said with the benefit of having observed the process thus far in Victoria it's not just the establishment of that representative body that's called the assembly here it's all the pieces of furniture that were put in place over the past four years or so it probably we're in train much longer than that.
• 39:43
  So I think not even going to start or weren't able to start negotiating a statewide treaty until they could establish more equal footing for you know that Aboriginal or just let's just say Aboriginal people to negotiate with the state because there was a power imbalance there on you know large proportions whether it be financial resources or just you know power structure power imbalance.
• 40:10
  You know communities just not having the organization to understand what they wanted to go shape for starters let alone you know the pragmatic way of doing it so things like the treaty what is it the strategic.
• 40:30
  SFD I think the acronym is strategic negotiation fund or something like that so you know it was established and then there was the treaty negotiating authority or the treaty authority and it's kind of like this independent umpire they describe it as it's kind of going to oversee the statewide treaty negotiations and then all of these nation negotiations for these smaller treaties.
• 40:58
  So you can't just wait and this obviously takes one you need resources to be able to establish these things and time is a resource so you're not just going to leap you know referendums down you beauty you know next year we're going to go straight to treaty.
• 41:13
  Just going off the big model it's four to five probably longer years anyway before you even start to do these things and this is the main point out of all of the conversations around this over that time period you've got people in a disadvantage like the worst disadvantaged communities in Australia.
• 41:37
  Like legit just you know actually dying from things that could be remedied with better policy of with you know advice around better shaping policy better implementation of policy better resourcing of health services things like that like the status quo that and you know this is coming out of the mountains of yes advocates as well the status quo that's in place hasn't.
• 42:06
  You know served Aboriginal people in their aspirations and rights very well at all you know that's reflected in the disparity within the no closing the gap measures.
• 42:18
  So you know I think that's the urgency around the voice that is most central most core and key people dying at the moment and if you get a voice in you know people dying from all sorts of things shitty water.
• 42:35
  You know housing overcrowding and housing unavailability of housing in some of these communities that's contributing to all sorts of dysfunction and you know harm in terms of health like you can just go through a name of your fingers.
• 42:52
  But you know a voice can provide insight useful advice to implement well to shake policy and then implement systems that improve these things and alleviate those freshers or whatever and people will their life will improve their life the length of their life the standard of their life their well being overall will improve.
• 43:21
  And by you know whatever decisions go around delaying you know putting that kind of mechanism or establishing that mechanism you know is it's going to take time and.
• 43:35
  When you say that these that this body will improve will rapidly increase the pace of improvement of real people's lives that's the point at which I think the opponents of the referendum from the other perspective would jump in.
• 43:53
  Because so far we've been addressing this question of oh it doesn't go far enough the voice referendum we should go straight to a treaty you know it's tokenistic it's just a the white man within the institutions of the constitution you know within the systems of oppression throwing a bone that is convenient rather than going all all out and actually recognizing the sovereignty of first nations then the other sort of almost opposite no position seems to be rather than it not rather than it not going for.
• 44:23
  So far enough the referendum actually goes too far because it's divisive and it doesn't it doesn't treat us all equally by addressing people on a needs basis that we actually instead of funding all of these you know bureaucrats in Canberra having a talk fest about.
• 44:40
  The question is what we need is for that money instead to be spent on bread and butter matters and funnel directly into regional Australia and helping our first nations people on the ground how do you know that the voice that this new body will expedite an improvement in conditions on the ground.
• 45:01
  Well if we're looking at the model that seems to be and I'm not I'd have to go back to check to see if elbow is actually said this is the model that we're looking at but the model that seems to be the one they have in mind for this voice proposal is the one that was put forward by the Tom Carmer and she linked in their final report to the last government which was a coalition government.
• 45:27
  In the coalition government you know just by the side by the way they were they were pretty wrapped with it and looking towards implementing some of the early stages of it before they got turfed out of the federal election.
• 45:41
  So they'll be on it then and now they're not big on it but if you look at that model.
• 45:48
  This is and actually like as a journalist and as an Aboriginal man this is the bit about the voice that I found most interesting now it's more to do with the information warfare and disinformation back a few months or weeks ago it was around this detail.
• 46:06
  It is fed from local communities upwards so this whole rhetoric propaganda around it's going to be stuff with camera bureaucrats getting you know getting fat on bloody lunches or whatever it's not true completely inaccurate.
• 46:25
  The model that was put forward that seems to be the one that's being embraced by Albanese fed up from local communities and also these bodies these local voices.
• 46:36
  Forms differently this is a really interesting aspect to me so some of them may be formed say for example like the Victorian well the first people assembly of Victoria which is democratically elected.
• 46:49
  And what I would suggest is orthodox kind of way that to you know western thinking in terms of elections others may be appointing local voices like the deal that council up in item when that we heard about at gamma.
• 47:09
  Where they're you know it's chieftains local chieftains from plans and stuff that that form this elders council call the deal that council.
• 47:19
  Really interesting one is Torres Strait Islanders so they would have two local voices that fed upwards into this national voice.
• 47:29
  One of them will be based on the islands. Oh yeah come from the representative of people still on the Torres Strait Islands and another Torres Strait Island local voice will be representative of the diaspora that is based predominantly around cans but elsewhere in northern Queensland.
• 47:49
  So that have kind of two representative bodies because obviously the concerns of the diaspora may be a little bit different than the concerns of the people on the islands.
• 48:00
  So that's pretty cool or if it's don't think it's cool it's the least interesting.
• 48:08
  And you know and else you know somewhere else may have a completely different way that I haven't even thought about the other interesting thing to point out is that a lot of these local voices are already established like the deal that council central land council is another one that be pretty much and I'm not sure they would do this but they could.
• 48:28
  If there was an issue in the future around establishing some of these things in terms of resourcing they could you know central land council has representatives from and I forget the number but a lot of different communities and home lands that form up the central lands council.
• 48:49
  So but all of these things all these council of these smaller local bodies they're hearing about the concerns issues that are impacting people you know in community and then those they're carrying those concerns and issues up and over and down to camera.
• 49:10
  And also the makeup of that voice body in camera the national voice body isn't fixed like it's changing and this is all in the detail of this report which is available online I don't know some of the rhetoric that's out there that no details available is just completely wrong because it's all there.
• 49:32
  And isn't it still isn't it still to be determined whether on how those representatives will be selected I mean do we know whether they'll be.
• 49:40
  Well it depends on each each local voice or local body you know in some cases it's it's more pertinent for custom you know customary law to inform who gets appointed in some cases for these local bodies it might be more pertinent for a more western.
• 50:01
  And you know ballot to take place it's you know and that's why potentially that's why it's difficult for to convey to a broad public exactly what you know what form or system that's going to take because.
• 50:17
  These are very different populations in very different geographies and other landmass and so yeah sorry the other important thing is you know it's not it's not fixed none of it is fixed in terms of the design principles or concepts this is about this is in the report itself this is about a starting point rather than an end point so you know just may start doing it in one way.
• 50:47
  Another government comes in and says that's not really working as effectively as it could you know we're going to establish it so it works like this the voice body has to because you know it's up to the government about how it is structured and how it operates it's just that the government can't get rid of it entirely.
• 51:04
  So you know it could change every what it was the federal one three years three and a half years or whatever and Jack one of the things that I hear most from my radio listeners who who are who fret about it will say things like what we don't know how many people this is going to be we don't know what their compensation is going to be we don't know how how large the body is going to be like that they're like you know we're we're being asked to whether or not we want to order from a particular restaurant but we haven't seen the menu yet.
• 51:34
  Yeah it's funny how most of the reservations that people have come back to are they going to get paid for being on this body and will these every regional people seek reparations which is more money why should they have money.
• 51:50
  And it's just you know that at all the fear or anxiety or whatever it is the tribes that sort of thinking always comes into play around these issues I don't get it because if you I mean I want to work here but to be yeah but to be fair to be as fair as possible to the people who have reservations it would make a difference if there were a thousand people in this thing a million dollars a year versus if there were you know I don't know 50 people making a hundred grand a year.
• 52:19
  I mean yeah I mean she could take in terms of the detail that's available that you know it's two representatives from each local body that go into the national body gender balance as well and yeah I forget the final makeup of the national body but the detail is in that report and in terms of the local bodies again you know they could look like a deal like council which has got say you know just top my head.
• 52:49
  Eight different lead or chief terms or whatever is the best term for that you know clan leaders it could look like the Cape York Council of Elders which has got you know again off top my head.
• 53:03
  I don't know or it could look like central and council which has more than that so but out of either out of any of those local those local voices you got to go into the national voice.
• 53:22
  In terms of wages and stuff I don't think there is detail in the report that I've seen around that presumably it would be above you know award wages but it wouldn't be excessive because whatever budget would be coming out of.
• 53:39
  Now the overall indigenous affairs budget I imagine and like the urgency here is to use that resource into improving.
• 53:52
  And as you said you know the successive governments are going to be able to change all of these parameters the one thing they're not going to be able to do is get rid of this body that's another thing.
• 54:11
  That I hear from people who are concerned like why do you have to bake it into the very constitution of the nation yeah that's it the core and it goes back to the top of the conversation there's been so many of these representative bodies that just get scrapped.
• 54:30
  And you know with a stroke of a pen by incoming governments and it can be just that fully calls you know by part of the partisanship that they don't like what was established by the last government what that government represented so they'll scrap them that's what it feels like to average or people.
• 54:51
  Right I mean so the downside of having a body like the voice to parliament which is ledges which would be legislated instead of in the constitution would be that the fickle whims of a partisan you know political hack could be exerted inflicted upon it and it could be abolished.
• 55:09
  But the upside of not having in the constitution is that if it were to become useless corrupt pointless misguided co-opted by special interests unrepresented in some way then you could take it out the back behind the shed and and do it in which is something that you can't do if you've put it into the constitution is there any what like what do you say to people who have a concern about that.
• 55:35
  Well it's not based in reality or fact there's probably more accurate but it is based in the fact that you can't take it out of the constitution.
• 55:45
  That's right you can't take it out of the constitution but if those concerns that you just put forward there will legitimate what the incoming government can do is restructure what the voice is.
• 55:58
  So if you know in whatever scenario it may be the incoming government can shape the makeup of the voice.
• 56:06
  So I can address a lot of concerns that it may have around the voice now they can't scrap it entirely it has to be there but they can change the structure of it.
• 56:18
  So what's the best years case?
• 56:26
  Well the best years case that I've heard and I've travelled around a fair bit talking with people in community for pretty much a fair bit of Australia now.
• 56:40
  And it's what I you know the most common sort of response is an aspirational yes from Aboriginal people.
• 56:50
  A lot of people you know don't know the detail of it.
• 56:54
  We ask a series of questions to kind to get a picture of what the thinking is and the situation is for people when it comes to this proposal.
• 57:08
  And although you know they were like a lot of non-indigenous communities the same way as the detail we'd like to see more detail was like when we got down to it how would you vote they go well of course I'd vote yes like why would I vote no like so that's what I came to describe as an aspirational yes they wanted something to be representative of their concerns.
• 57:32
  And why would they vote against anything that endeavoured to further their aspirations or to further their rights.
• 57:42
  So I think that was the most compelling case for me personally I kind of approached it.
• 57:50
  As you know a journalist probably shooting you know impartial and objective and all that sort of stuff and the more I heard those sorts of responses was like who am I to kind of stand and to oppose that sort of thinking.
• 58:08
  These also coming from elders and if they weren't elders they were older community members.
• 58:16
  So yeah that for me that was the most compelling.
• 58:20
  But again with the benefit of having observed how the the treaty process was developed.
• 58:32
  It's not an end point it's a starting point so it may work you know starts on day one if it gets up is and will be you know through four years down the track.
• 58:52
  Well structurally it could look different but also as it's not about you know implementing something and then it not changing anymore.
• 59:02
  I think a lot of it's just going to facilitate more good this is my personal belief now currently it's going to facilitate more good that it would create problems.
• 59:16
  What do you make politically of the multicultural question about getting multicultural communities on board is I've spoken with people who work.
• 59:28
  You know Chinese small Chinese Australian small business people in the southwest of Sydney for example who are a bit baffled and confused by the whole thing and feel like I thought this was a multicultural country where everyone's treated equally.
• 59:42
  You try to create a level playing field for everybody but everybody can get ahead we don't do we don't pick favorites where against racism and so on and yet here's this one community that gets its special carve out where's the carve out for the Chinese people or the Sikh people or the young Muslim girls or whatever that might be.
• 1:00:02
  Well the myth of the level playing field needs to be busted I mean these are national narratives that have you know been propagated by successive governments for decades.
• 1:00:18
  So the fact of the matter is Aboriginal people are not on a level playing field and again you look at the disparity in so many of the closing the gap measures hasn't been a level playing field since forever so you know.
• 1:00:37
  Right but I mean wouldn't I mean the presumably the Chinese Australian who arrives with nothing or the Vietnamese personal arrives with nothing or the young lesbian Muslim girl who's living with a disability these are all people who are disadvantaged and to the extent that there is no level playing field all of these people feel that one has to construct a society in which all of those people are treated.
• 1:01:03
  If not equally then aspirationally the same way and that this idea of a voice to parliament runs counter to that egalitarianism in Australia.
• 1:01:14
  Well they may hold us is but it's it's not running counter to the egalitarianism it is addressing that disparity that's creating an even playing field so if you have you know people in those scenarios that you suggested come in.
• 1:01:32
  And they you know for whatever reason the whole community was affected in the same ways that we see entire Aboriginal communities affected by things like lack of drinking water.
• 1:01:46
  Crouting and housing culturally you know well health services non-existent all of those measures that we see they would have governments prepared to do something to improve that situation that is not the case with Aboriginal community while the government endeavours to improve the situation close those gaps.
• 1:02:16
  It has failed to do so even if we just go back to 2008 when the idea for closing closing the gaps kind of came up they started to monitor them.
• 1:02:33
  And there's been a number of reviews about how the method and measures about what's successful and what's not shifting the goal post between 2008 and the present.
• 1:02:45
  But even if we just go back to that stage it demonstrates that the government fails to successfully address many and most of these issues.
• 1:02:58
  Now across that period we've seen the establishment of the Coalition of Peaks which is a body of community run or community led organizations advising governments and just that example proves that things get better when Aboriginal people are heard onto these issues whether it's the shaping the policy implementing the policy.
• 1:03:25
  They are operating some of these systems in community.
• 1:03:32
  So with that model there there's no reason for the government to sort of say or it doesn't work because clearly it does.
• 1:03:43
  And so in your view this is really about a pragmatic way of addressing concrete needs because I also hear the argument that there is something unique about First Nations people on this continent.
• 1:04:04
  And they basically have a right on the basis of their enduring heritage legacy sovereignty on this land to be treated differently from any other group.
• 1:04:16
  But it sounds like you're saying that if it were the case that for example Somali refugees had the same persistent entrenched like metrics of disadvantage as First Nations Australians to then there would be a legitimate case for having a constitutionally enshrined body of Somali refugees.
• 1:04:37
  Well it would not necessarily need to be constitutionally enshrined in that instance.
• 1:04:43
  I mean a lot of these lobby groups that exist currently in shape policy, shape roll out of policy.
• 1:04:54
  So they have various interests of various communities as their motivation or as their guiding principle.
• 1:05:05
  These things exist. Aboriginal people don't have one of those lobby groups like I'm talking about Aboriginal communities don't have those lobby groups.
• 1:05:17
  They are operating within the halls of parliament. So this is one one way of addressing that lack of that gap as well.
• 1:05:31
  Why has it been so hard to close the gap?
• 1:05:35
  Well general answer is that the people that are developing the policy and implementing the policy and rolling out the policy within communities don't listen to the advice of the Aboriginal people that are from those communities.
• 1:05:55
  Is that advice given with a single voice because one concern is sometimes well who's doing the talking if these are communities where there are high rates of dysfunction whether it's domestic violence or disadvantage or lack of education then on whose behalf are the people who are speaking for them speaking you know there are sometimes there's sometimes conflicting advice.
• 1:06:16
  There is conflicting advice within community as with all communities.
• 1:06:22
  I'm thinking more along the lines of big policy that comes in is not guided with the best interest of Aboriginal people in mind some of the time.
• 1:06:34
  Other policies that do come in with the best of interest and well being of Aboriginal people in front of mine or in the first instance come in implemented elements of them don't work it becomes a parent to communities pretty quickly who do they tell.
• 1:06:55
  I've got no one to tell it doesn't get carried you know back up the chain and these sorts of things stay in place for I don't know say a decade or two decades and the harming communities but it's generally in many instances pretty simple fix or adjustment or a simple adjustment other things that these communities are kind of recommending and they don't get heard.
• 1:07:23
  You know some of the big ones you have non-indigenous people come up with these ideas write a paper we've seen this in the past with the Abbott government write a paper and these things that these some of the people that write these papers are even involved in government they are business interests and the next thing you have employment policies go into place or initiatives like the debit cards
• 1:07:52
  which over again a couple of decades was proved to be more harmful in communities than what it was beneficial broadly speaking not in every case.
• 1:08:04
  Because it's that sort of thing so in that hypothetical we have a businessman perhaps develop a paper and then the government adopt that paper as policy you would have a group of people on hand to say I am it's not a bad idea but you know that bit there not great you know there's a better way of doing it have a listen to this they've got a proposal around this other bit over here.
• 1:08:34
  That's how it would function that's how it's likely to function just looking at the way that the assembly is in operation down here.
• 1:08:46
  What would you think if you fast forward at 30 years if I could show you Australia today would you be pleased or displeased about the progress we've made on First Nations issues.
• 1:09:06
  So if we're in 1992 in the early 90s.
• 1:09:16
  I was still having I was only very young man 17 or something 1617 I was having arguments with people about you know being called Aboriginal like they wouldn't call you say for example you call me Guru like Guru is probably more accurate than referring to me as indigenous or Aboriginal.
• 1:09:42
  Those sorts of arguments or conversations people just didn't back then and I this was in an area where there was a large population of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders and other Islanders as well but non-indigenous people just had less of an idea even how to address Aboriginal people.
• 1:10:08
  So in that respect it's improved I think over the last 10 to 15 years it's got better in some ways but I mean again you keep going back to some of the disparities and disadvantages and stuff that has improved greatly to get 92 and has improved much since 72.
• 1:10:31
  There's a very noticeable I don't want to get myself in trouble here very noticeable shift among white self-congratulatory elites in the amount of mental space that First Nations Australians occupies I've noticed it over the course of my growing up that the rise of acknowledgements of country the sort of performative.
• 1:11:02
  Back patting ourselves on the back for being deeply concerned about First Nations issues the flying of the flag and now signalling our virtuousness for being behind the voice referendum.
• 1:11:19
  They all create a sort of a matrix or a fabric of of what feels like tremendous progress from my detached elitist white purge and I am often I often check myself and think actually you know what's the real guiding star here what are we actually shooting for.
• 1:11:47
  If we're shooting for a genuine on the ground improvement is this whole thing a bit of a game is it a bit of a wank or is it necessary to get things changed on the ground what are you reckon.
• 1:12:04
  I think it will facilitate change on the ground I think it's difficult to.
• 1:12:15
  I think it's difficult to argue against that and again just going about the coalition of peaks they say that the coalition of peaks say that some of the conversations they've had with governments have improved the understanding of governments has improved since they started having regular meetings as part of the coag or whatever it is.
• 1:12:42
  But again this is all kind of small steps we're just seeing as you were talking like going back when I was saying primary school you didn't see the Aboriginal flag flown anywhere really I grew up in a small town mid north coast of New South Wales.
• 1:13:07
  New that I was Aboriginal from you know I don't know two three I don't know as far back as brain started working.
• 1:13:16
  So you know an in community as well and we were always on the periphery and we didn't see things like welcome to countries or flags or anything like that.
• 1:13:29
  Very much part of if not that you know that great silence or you know as it's described will very much of the disappearing or the dispersal.
• 1:13:40
  And I think what improves say from that period through the present is acknowledgment and recognition around our presence within that area.
• 1:13:53
  But sort of on my father's side which is the non-indigenous side of the family some of us that older crew and past now but you know back in the 80s and that they just didn't count as the idea that Aboriginal people you know were present on any of that land area that they've lived on.
• 1:14:19
  And I think I can look back now back to back to home to country and and that's changed so that that's an improvement but you look at some of the issues that are plaguing even my own community up there and you know the same as in remote and very remote communities lack of housing health disparities and stuff.
• 1:14:44
  They hadn't been addressed and that's you know through four hours probably four half hours drive from Sydney.
• 1:14:51
  You don't even have to go that far you can just drive you to stay in Sydney and you can see disparities.
• 1:14:58
  You know I mean I drew it black town wherever and and see the same sorts of gross disparities there.
• 1:15:05
  So yeah look at least now well the other thing like at least now we're present to finish that thought.
• 1:15:13
  The other thing you know within my life it wasn't you weren't allowed to be proud of being Aboriginal either.
• 1:15:20
  And this is just going back to the 80s potentially early 90s in some of these towns.
• 1:15:27
  These days it's kind of cool you know it's it's the fad and I think black lives matter had a bit to do with that but so many people want to identify as being you know Indigenous.
• 1:15:43
  And it wasn't cool when I was growing up and I hear that quite a bit actually people in communities it wasn't cool back then.
• 1:15:52
  There you go that's potentially could be seen as an improvement you know but it's lost certainly yeah you go into some of these communities and you know my one of my uncles died but I think he was mid 60s.
• 1:16:07
  And that's just that shouldn't be allowed to happen. Yeah chronic diseases and they were preventable and he died and that was you know important quarry which as I said is probably not far from Sydney so.
• 1:16:23
  Yeah okay well and in the let's fast forward into the future since we've just talked about what today is like in comparison to the past you know we missed a generation of change after the Republic referendum you mentioned earlier let's assume this referendum passes and we go at one generation in the future and we're in the middle of the 21st century.
• 1:16:45
  What's your best case scenario like can you articulate the vision of the place that First Nations Australians hold in Australian national life that would be you know where you would feel like yeah we did it.
• 1:17:01
  Oh it's difficult to look that far ahead you know when you deal with stuff as urgently in the present.
• 1:17:12
  I think and this is just personally personally I think having I mean we're kind of seeing more Aboriginal people more Aboriginal parliamentarians.
• 1:17:28
  Or parliamentarians that are of Aboriginal descent is probably accurate way of putting it.
• 1:17:36
  So I think you know that'll that'll increase.
• 1:17:43
  I don't know it's really difficult for me to sort of cast that far forward.
• 1:17:52
  Yeah I'm 47 next year I think I going in Aboriginal years I've got about probably 45 20 years left before I'm gone.
• 1:18:10
  So I'm an older father as well that's there the urgent things that I kind of think about so I don't know about 30 years ahead but in 10 years I'd like to see the average that I am going to live for another 10 years so I can hang out with my kids a bit.
• 1:18:29
  Do you think of yourself as tracking the longevity of the median indigenous Australian when in reality isn't most of that reflective of access to healthcare access to nutrition you know other social.
• 1:18:46
  I don't know if it's all ill like addiction and living in remote areas of Australia or whatever that is.
• 1:18:53
  That's right yeah this is I mean that's the complex.
• 1:18:56
  By which I mean you're not you're not subject to those factors.
• 1:19:00
  Well generation into generationally and transgenderally I am so my health isn't great because the housing that my parents or my mother had but I was young.
• 1:19:13
  I was in a position that in location that exposed me to some stuff that affected my respiratory and development and stuff like that because could not afford and was not allowed to live in other areas that could have prevented exposure of those things.
• 1:19:36
  So I was but many of those measures affect people Aboriginal people in urban areas you know all these things are not isolated to remote and very remote communities.
• 1:19:55
  It's impossible to predict it's it's such a big it's such a big thing to get our arms around thanks for breaking it down for us Jack it's it's useful what's your what's your general sense of where the nation's mood is around the referendum lastly.
• 1:20:12
  Well this is what it's been doing all day all month look the polls suggest the commercial polls I'm talking about the ones that the newspapers reporting on.
• 1:20:27
  Yeah there's been the steady decline in people that are supporting it as the no creeps up speaking with some of the people that are involved in yes to three and on the road dialogue they're looking at a different set of polls.
• 1:20:45
  Three polls in particular and these three polls are squaring up in terms of support for it so and also undecided you keep this is kind of answered in over the last month you know the discourse over last month.
• 1:21:05
  That the undecideds you know 30 40% out there are going to determine whether it gets up or not so if I was a betting man which I am and if there was a market on the referendum which they're probably is but I haven't been able to find it yet.
• 1:21:25
  I would plonk money on the yes vote you get good odds at the moment and I reckon that there is more good will towards it out there that perhaps the mainstream media is not you know not hearing from or not sampling.
• 1:21:52
  Yeah that's where I'd go at the moment though for me it's really just I've just as I was said earlier I mentioned earlier some of the information warfare around it the disinformation yeah just astonishing you know we're seeing a lot of you know what we observed from afar in when Trump was getting around America.
• 1:22:18
  And Brexit we've seen a lot of those kind of tactics being deployed over here so yeah I just find that of you know fascinating but also quite alarming and I just like there's a story down here where somebody used the assembly to distribute a fake letter in a rural sort of area.
• 1:22:43
  Just to soak up that fear about Aboriginal people coming to take their backyards and it's just like the sophistication and extent of that deception like it's real and it's happening and then the sorts of things that is pretty rotten to see.
• 1:23:03
  Yeah I've seen one of those letters I was visiting friend in Northern New South Wales and they got they got letter dropped of a thing saying that you know whatever everyone doesn't realize is that constitutionally once the once the voice body is set up that means that acts as a trigger of having acknowledged the sovereignty of the original sovereignty of First Nations people and that means that there will then be a high court challenge which will abolish private property in Australia because actually First Nations people own everything which was recognized when the yes vote went through and like this arc came.
• 1:23:33
  It's just a constitutional argument and yeah I just have to believe that most people the vast vast majority of people see those things and just go well that doesn't sound like it's very credible.
• 1:23:45
  Yeah well I have to believe that as well because it's pretty despairing you know I have fluctuating it's been difficult that's another thing that should probably touch on Aboriginal people has been rough you know
• 1:23:59
  a couple of centuries I suppose but since of just August last year to this point it's been really tough and you know as I go around talk with people yeah it's like how are you doing and this is that really pointed sort of question or tone about how it's asked because everyone knows this is a testing bloody time to be a black flyer how you hold them up sort of thing.
• 1:24:26
  So yeah I think remember with the same sex plebiscite and all of the scrapping the rhetorical scrapping and political scrapping around that.
• 1:24:38
  On the other side we've been during but you know in the assessment of how it was a lot of that was horrible and it was unnecessary and you know shouldn't have been in the situation where you know
• 1:24:52
  gender diverse LGBTQ you know all that sort of stuff became targeted by some of these opponents the same sex marriage.
• 1:25:02
  And it received some attraction or it received audience or whatever I think because Aboriginal people only whatever it is 2.8 or 3% or whatever it is at the moment percent of the population.
• 1:25:18
  The scope of you know what we were what we're carrying what we're dealing with has kind of been overlooked a fair bit was being glided past.
• 1:25:32
  So yeah I hope at some point you know someone kind of acknowledges that it hasn't been easy going at all for Aboriginal people particularly over the last 12 months since the PM announced some detail around the referendum.
• 1:25:48
  Gamma last year and you know a lot of it is avoidable and it would be good if you know Aboriginal people weren't being harmed in the process of this entire referendum proposal.
• 1:26:06
  Jack take care of yourself in all ways in you know not just also not just personally and emotionally going through this time but also professionally don't burn the candle both ends quite too much because it's going to get intense and there's going to be a lot of yeah lock going on over the next 4 weeks I appreciate you taking the time it's great to talk to you thank you.
• 1:26:28
  Thanks for having me and yeah we're in the shoot now this is only one way to go and it's towards October 14 for a journalist and yeah I prefer to be doing other you know lighthearted stories or you know fun stories but yeah this is a slog and I'm looking forward to the other side.
• 1:26:47
  Will you take a holiday in November?
• 1:26:49
  Taken a holiday in October.
• 1:26:54
  Pretty much once the one of it is the Saturdays out of the way I'm on a try and head it up the coast so looking forward to that.
• 1:27:03
  That's what's going to be through.
• 1:27:05
  Good on you thanks Jack.
• 1:27:07
  Thanks mate catch ya.