The discourse of voice. Is it a gift?

(Disclaimer - A personal view only – that may, or will evolve and change over time)

No matter how you vote in the Australian referendum on the 14th of October 2023, it’s a voice of discourse.

Time is a linear human concept, a construct, a universal accepted reference for measurement of one’s own self-determined short existence, or the hopes and dreams of what might be, or understanding the privilege of origin, acknowledging for all millennia the human condition, the human collective, and the human storyline for time immemorial.

I or we, or both? A Latin dictum coined by Rene Descartes, Cogito, ergo sum, translates to, I think, therefore I am, it is as indubitable and Nirvana lyrics in the 90’s grunge hit, Smells Like Teen Spirit - our little group has always been, and always will until the end. ??As night and day exist, so to individuals and groups, the later, undeniable, a species we all belong to, we are all humans, the alternate, aliens, but that’s for another post! ??

Individuals and groups are dipoles of existence marked by time, governed by and for all, it is irrefutable, however you choose to identify. ?I am an individual and I am a human, all that exists in between these dipoles is, but the groups defined by many, many other constructs, such as, the location you reside, the tribe you acknowledge, the partner you connect with or even more divisive or uniting – the sporting team you support.?

As a keen observer and participant in the human condition, I respect, but I am at odds with many of the concepts of the individuality of groups and their own self-determination, a tautology of vernacular for the benefit of self-group justification, it’s just over or under thinking at its best.? The Dali Lama said it best – “We all suffer. It’s just a part of life”, and by we in context, it is the singular group - Humans.

My own existence is marked in Latin as “ab origine” or “from the beginning”, this is celebrated by my entry or birth into this world as an original inhabitant of my location, my privilege of origin, I am connected to all that has been, all that is, and all that will be.? Beyond being me, or I, or a human, the complex Venn diagrams of groups I am associated with that follow me on life’s journey, incorporates history, culture, connection to country, hopes and dreams for the future, yet are simply a notch in time for me to decide now, today, this very present for my own sovereign self-determination, I think, therefore I am. ?

Self and time are forward moving constructs, with imaginative and reflective overtones.? Oogway said it best in Kung Fu Panda – “Yesterday is history, Tomorrow is a mystery, but today is a gift. That is why it is called the present.”? Or another perspective, if you are living in the past, you have no time to face the dreams of the future or the gift of the present.? The gift of the Uluru statement presented to the Australian public, is a gift of discourse.? It is a statement rather than a question to be answered, so, it is a matter of personal, individual perspective where you view the statement from, living in the past, the future or the present – are we are all missing the gift?

There is no doubt, the overwhelming present vibe of the public is to acknowledge First Nations People in the Australian Commonwealth Constitution, and I’d be a betting human to say, if this referendum question was framed differently, acknowledgement only, you would get a very different public discourse.?

Similarities to the referendum in 1999, question two was hijacked by question one, the republic.? It was framed provocatively; it distracted the public from what was really outlined in question two.? As with 1999 the general vibe was agreement to become a republic – but how you voted for a president was not for the betterment of all.? Now, in 2023, we all want to acknowledge, to recognise – but is the Voice the way for the betterment of all?? Only voters will confirm if the question was framed correctly.?

Many forget in 1999, question two presented a new preamble to the constitution which would have enshrined acknowledgment - “honoring Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders, the nation's first people, for their deep kinship with their lands and for their ancient and continuing cultures which enrich the life of our country.” ?However, 20+ years later, as outline in the Uluru Statement supporting pages (whatever their number), a preambular recognition, does not go far enough and would not be acceptable to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.? Any reform must involve substantive changes to the Australian Constitution, it must lay the foundation for the fair treatment of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples into the future – the Voice.

We are all humans, oh, and we are Australians, one country, one mob, one law, we all want a fair go – the Uluru statement “seeks constitutional reform to empower ‘our’ people to take a rightful place” – rightful place was asked and answered in the overwhelming 90% successful “YES” referendum of 1967.? The public acknowledged, there should be “NO” “us” and “them” just “we” and “our” - One people, One group, One voice, or at least a Nation’s group voice.?

For individual voices, the constitution already provides the mechanism to be heard, maybe not clearly but it is available to us all and it has done so now inclusively for 56 years, since 1967 – three tiers of Government, Local, State and Federal.?

We all have the path to Voice, the ability to reach the highest level of Government through many channels, direct and indirect, we all have freedom of choice, to lobby, to seek reform and change.? ?However, the question of substantive change is a change in law.? And constitutional law is the height of ambiguities of specifics through interpretation of language, a topic for discourse of “just cause” and "peace, order, and good government" best left to QC’s and the High Court, the most distinguished “Castle” in this fair land.

If any question might be answered for us, it may clearly highlight the duality of bureaucracy, simply put, it is the combination of government decisions which are excessively complicated and the result is available for us all to undoubtedly view – the failing of equal opportunity for the mob by the bureaucracy – it seems no one has a voice or fair go! ?

If anything might be an outcome for all Australians, maybe we all need a collective “Unifying Voice of Change” to help rally reform of the current bureaucracy.? Should our aim be to tap on keys, post on socials, speak to MP’s and yell loudly from our castles to help with all disadvantaged Australians, no matter their group or origin.? After all, we are all humans for time immemorial, we all want for improved State based health, education, employment, and housing opportunities, for a better life outcome.

It’s not that the question was asked, it was how the question is framed, resulting in the current discourse.? So, in the famous words of Denis Denuto, in summing up - it’s the constitution, it’s Mabo, it’s justice, its law, it’s the vibe and aah no that’s it, it’s the vibe.? Whatever your vibe, enjoy the discourse of the voice because it is a gift of the present, as Oasis sang, “don’t look back in anger”, history is full of it, it will only make you bitter, so focus on the positives, turn around, look forward, enjoy the mystery of the future – but the true gift is the present, a gift shared by all humans and individuals alike - that’s the vibe, the discourse is the gift!