ANSWERING THE QUESTION – why I have changed my mind.

A YES vote may not be the perfect bridge, but it offers another chance to walk towards an environment where fears and anxieties related to migration and territorial loss are reduced, promoting personal security and fostering a more harmonious and inclusive Australia as the guarantee of freedom from fears about our futures.

The white supremacist, fascist, and racist claim that history justifies denial of Convention 107 and UN treaties based on superior military power as justification for denial of 60,000 years of adverse possession as the first waves of peoples who settled and maintained this country then the NO case become as an associate has summed it up – ?“we invaded and we won; why aren’t they lying down and taking it. They must be very angry. Better to keep them down as long as we can; we stole their land why wouldn’t they want it back if they can? Fuck ‘em”

The relationship between attitudes towards migrants and indigenous landowners that manifests as unconscious fear of territorial loss, anxiety, fear, and racism is complex and deeply rooted in historical, social, economic, and psychological factors. This is not about racial divisions, political power grabs or even closing the gap in life expectancy etc. but a critical issue of sovereign recognition and challenge to actions such as Putin’s claim to Ukraine, Xi’s claim to Taiwan, Netanyahu’s claim to Jerusalem or Hitler’s claim to Europe

In 1970 I was the sole voice at ??The Age Futures Conference to oppose a single Makarrata proposal because there was no such thing as a single aboriginal (lower case A) after having campaigned for the successful 1967 referendum. ??This should be regarded as about our place in history, not about race and divisions.?? As the child of stateless immigrants who were accepted by this nation after arriving on a boat from the devastation of the trampling of sovereign borders by the German Reich, it is clear to me that the recognition of the first nations of this country sets a precedent pointed out decades ago by Paddy McGuiness. If it is right for military might to justify the takeover of sovereign nations, then might become the only right that matters.

There are many legitimate reasons to consider the progressive NO case for truth and treaty to be a necessary condition for the recognition of the adverse possession of the Great South Land long before its first visitors with an African heritage and Asian cultures predating the Dutch and British Colonialist expeditions.

The Voice is not an executive body. It is not going to represent race over place. It is not going to change Australia Day. It will not introduce Apartheid or take over people’s Hill’s hoist backyard. The Voice could be a step towards initiatives to address:

Empower Indigenous Communities:

o?? Supporting initiatives that empower indigenous communities, such as land rights, economic development projects, and access to education and healthcare. Generating agency and opportunities and reducing unconscious fears of territorial loss.

Effective Policy Development:

o?? Advocacy for inclusive policies that address the concerns of both migrant and indigenous communities. Policies should aim to create a fair and just society that respects the rights and needs of all generations of Australian landowners with policies that focus on addressing economic insecurity and job market fears. Provide training and re-skilling programs to mitigate perceived economic competition and promote a sense of financial security for all.

Education and Awareness:

o?? Advising Governments and Canberra’s bureaucrats on educational programs that provide accurate information about migration, its drivers, and its benefits to society highlighting the contributions of generations of migrants to the economy, culture, and overall well-being of communities.

Promote Intercultural Understanding:

o?? Encouraging cultural exchanges and understanding through community events, workshops, and dialogues that bring people from diverse backgrounds together to share their experiences and perspectives.

Engage in Dialogue and Communication:

o?? Facilitating open and respectful dialogues between different communities, including migrants and indigenous populations. Create safe spaces where people can express their concerns and fears and work towards finding common ground.

Community Integration Programs:

o?? Reviewing local and regional programs that close the gaps by language, cultural orientation, and support for finding employment and housing.

Mental Health Support:

o?? Providing mental health resources and support services to help individuals cope with anxiety and fear. Accessible mental health care can significantly contribute to personal security and well-being.

Promote Social Cohesion:

o?? Encouraging community-building activities that bring people together, fostering a sense of belonging and solidarity among all residents, regardless of their background.

Accordingly, I agree with a lot that Senator Thorpe presents as a Progress NO case for recognition of the sovereign status of the first nations of any country. However, addressing anxieties and fears related to migration, territorial loss, and personal security can assist in closing the gaps with a multi-dimensional approach that involves education, dialogue, policy changes, and community engagement advised by the voices of the First Nations to develop our country. It is a bridge to a better national future rather than remnants of colonial negativity and focus on British Colonial history.

There is, nevertheless, ?a very real concern that the Referendum debate on the Uluru invitation for recognition via The Voice has been hijacked by politicians concerned about getting a different PM rather than bridging the gap that is the legacy of Colonial, ?Caucasian, Constitutional Father’s disregard for women, migrants and other indigenous peoples in favour of protection from potential invasion by other nations who could claim the various territories under British rule.

The unconscious driver of the NO campaign is addressed by Hannah Arendt in her exploration of the foundations of fascism and other forms of totalitarian authoritarian regimes.?

Hannah Arendt was a renowned political philosopher and thinker known for her analysis of various aspects of human behaviour, politics, and society. While she did not specifically focus on xenophobia in her work, her writings do contain ideas that can be related to the concepts of anxiety, fear, and territorial terror as drivers of xenophobia.

*Anxiety and Fear: Arendt distinguished between anxiety and fear in her work. Anxiety, for her, is a more existential condition stemming from the human condition of unpredictability and the fear of the unknown. Fear, on the other hand, is a response to specific, tangible threats. In the context of xenophobia, anxiety could relate to the general unease or discomfort people might feel when confronted with the unfamiliar or the foreign. This existential anxiety could potentially lead to a fear of the other, especially if the unknown is perceived as a threat to one's identity or security.

*Territorial Terror: Arendt's concept of "territorial terror" may be connected to xenophobia when it involves a fear of encroachment on one's territory or space by outsiders. This territorial aspect can be linked to the fear of losing control over one's environment or the fear of cultural, economic, or political disruption due to the presence of foreigners. Such fears can contribute to the hostility and rejection of outsiders that characterize xenophobia.

It's important to note that Arendt's work is not a direct analysis of xenophobia, but her ideas on anxiety, fear, and territoriality can be applied to understand some of the psychological and social dynamics that underlie xenophobic attitudes and behaviours. She believed in the importance of active political engagement and critical thinking to prevent the emergence of such destructive tendencies in society. Her writings, particularly in works like "The Human Condition" and "The Origins of Totalitarianism," can provide insights into the broader context in which xenophobia may arise.

*Historical Context and Colonial Legacy:?Historical colonization and displacement of indigenous populations have set a foundation for the fear of territorial loss. European colonial powers often invaded and took over lands inhabited by indigenous communities, leading to the dispossession, marginalization, and forced relocation of native peoples. This history instilled a fear of losing land and resources among both indigenous communities and subsequent settler populations.

*Economic Insecurity and Competition:?Economic downturns, job insecurity, or other economic factors can exacerbate fears and anxieties about losing access to resources and opportunities. Migrants are sometimes scapegoated as a source of economic strain, taking jobs or using resources that are seen as scarce.

*Identity and Cultural Threat:?Cultural and social identities tied to land and heritage can amplify the fear of losing territory. Migrants, especially those perceived as different in terms of culture, language, or religion, may be viewed as a threat to the established identity of the dominant group.

Political Power Grabs and Media Influence:?Political leaders and media can perpetuate and exploit these fears to advance their agendas. They may frame migration in ways that emphasise potential territorial losses and cultural threats, stoking anxieties and promoting discriminatory attitudes towards

Perceived Zero-Sum Game:?Some individuals may perceive resources as finite and believe that any gains made by migrants could result in losses for the native population, particularly indigenous communities. This perception creates a sense of competition for resources and opportunities, feeding the fear of losing control over what is seen as limited territory and prosperity.

WE HAVE NOTHING TO FEAR FROM LISTENING TO DIVERSE VOICES.

Kerrynne Liddle, Shadow Minister for Child Protection and the Prevention of Family Violence, Senator for South Australia, in her first speech to Parliament as an indigenous woman said ??“My indigeneity is my identity. I am also so proud to be an ordinary Australian. I was raised with culture, language, country and community and I will thank forever my parents for their belief that these things and personal and professional success must coexist – they are inseparable. ?I raised my concern about the divisiveness, risk and implications of a focus on race. I said: “I get angry when others seek to define me firstly or only by race, and I know from experience it is getting worse.” (, September 2022) ??And yet …. here we are with a nation divided over race. This referendum is currently the cause of conflict in our homes, in our workplaces, on our streets and between friends and colleagues and strangers."

So the answer is that I have listened to the indigenous voices and changed my mind since 1970 recognising that the perfect is the enemy of the good. I have accepted the need to vote YES by an Indigenous Elder who says, “If you were left behind on a desert island and someone offered you a rickety bridge, would you say no, I want a more stable, well-constructed bridge to a better future?”

Now is the time to see that the primary reason for every conservative nay-sayer to also consider the implications of voting against the First Nation’s invitation to bridge the divide and follow other nations' wisdom in formally recognising that place, not race, is the essence of The Voice considerations.

?