Bill Rubinstein takes issue on the Leeser support for The Voice
Yesterday, Liberal MP Julian Leeser expressed his reasons why he advocates for a “Yes” vote in the upcoming referendum (https://www.jwire.com.au/a-word-on-the-voice-from-julian-leeser/). Academic Bill Rubinstein does not share his point of view.
He writes:
“There are many issues with Mr Leeser’s support for the Voice and the issues he raises:
Professor Bill Rubinstein
1. He does not mention the fact that the Voice will give special and unique privileges to 3% of the Australian population defined purely by their race and available to no other Australians. This is racism, pure and simple, and ought to be opposed for that reason.
2. The disadvantages suffered by the Aborigines, particularly by remote communities in the Outback, are well known. Mr. Leeser lists them in a cogent way. If they are well-known, why on earth do we need a Constitutional amendment to address and ameliorate them? Why isn’t the Albanese government doing something about them now? If it is, in fact, spending billions on addressing them — as it presumably is — what is the point of having a new Constitutional amendment? If it is trying to ascertain how effective this spending is, surely this can be done by asking Aborigine leaders and those engaged in helping them. Regarding Aboriginal unemployment, the problem is that Aborigines in remote areas live hundreds of kilometres from big cities with their employment opportunities. Even if the Voice amendment passes, they will still live hundreds of kms away, as they will even if 20 such amendments are passed.
3. A Constitutional amendment will be there as a legal document for the rest of time unless repealed. Sixty years from now it will still have to be acted upon, even if society has changed completely. It is simply too permanent and unchanging an enactment to remain there forever.
4. If it is defeated — as appears likely — there will be mass disappointment and resentment in a section of the Aboriginal community, with accusations of white racism, of the raising of expectations that could not be fulfilled, etc etc. The Voice is a very bad idea and ought to be defeated in October.
YES.
Bernard,
Bill Rubinstein has only mentioned the Albanese government, so that in fact ignores completely other Australian governments over the years in relation to the issue and ipso facto disputes it.
The Voice doesn’t give special privileges, it enables expression of issues particular to First Nation’s people through their own perspective, which can only be a good thing, especially if, insofar as ‘race’ is concerned, we become more unified as Australians together through better understanding.
&
William Rubinstein,
We shall have to agree to disagree. My perception being different to yours does not mean it’s distorted.
If the ‘special rights’ granted via the Constitution merely ensures an opportunity to express issues and problems that might afflict or affect the Aboriginal people, and doesn’t even ensure action on them, it can hardly be considered special. Rather it’s a right to put forward a perspective that might be different from that a non-Aboriginal person could envisage, thereby enabling possible understanding and better outcomes.
So, pre-Contact Aboriginal society was barbaric and murderous was it? You could say that about many a society throughout the centuries, and I hardly think such a general reference as the one you have made can signify full context of Aboriginal society.
You seem to fear a Treaty. Obviously great care would have to be taken with any form of Treaty, however, the fact is Australia was declared null and void of people when the British landed and took it, when the Aboriginal people did exist here and had done so for around 65,000 years. So something has to give with that, wouldn’t you say?
Liat Kirby, we live in a democracy and Mr Leeser is entitled to make any comment about public affairs that he wants. Your total distortion in your first point about what I said is indicative of your entire posting. Giving 3% of the population special rights in the Constitution based solely on race is ipso facto racist and should be objected to by every Jewish person in Australia. The Voice proposal is only the first step in a malign attempt to give special privileges to this group and will certainly be followed by proposals for a Treaty giving sovereign powers to one group of Australians. I might also add that pre-Contact Aboriginal society was barbaric and murderous. A book of mine on this subject setting that out in detail will be published online by Quadrant magazine within a week or two.
No 1, Julian Leeser is entitled to his view.
No. 2, the 3% minority group that are First Nation’s people need special treatment, and this kind of additional assistance as per the Voice, to address the many demonstrably bad problems that have not been successfully dealt with despite all the money thrown about by government. And also to acknowledge once and for all their identity and legitimate place in Australia.
No. 3, the questions you ask as to why the problems haven’t been addressed, singling out the Albanese government unfairly (the problem has been around throughout the time of all Australian governments), highlight the need for this kind of change, where a Voice can exist to ask or press for solutions and action. Otherwise, it’s easy to put in the too-hard basket and forget about it.
No. 4, Jews have been a minority all over the world except for Israel, often without recourse to any kind of governmental protection – and we know the results of that – so, one would think that might assist Bill Rubenstein in his considerations of Julian Leeser’s stance.
Here are my thoughts on your reply as I think you mischaracterised Bill Rubinstein’s position there.
1) You make a fair point that Julian Leeser is entitled to his opinion on supporting the Voice however I do not see Bill Rubinstein here disputing that. I think he would agree with you here, I do on this point.
2. Where does Bill Rubinstein also clearly agrees with you that the challenges faced by Indigenous Australians is important. His argument is that we can people can debate whether the Voice is the best way to accomplish that. His main point is that the Voice gives special privileges based on racial privileges.
3. Bill Rubinstein is not disputing that these issues have persisted across multiple governments, only he is saying that it is occurring under the current Albanese administration. You misstated his argument again.
4. Drawing a parallel to the history of Jews as a vulnerable minority is thought-provoking. However, I’d be careful equating the situations of Indigenous Australians and Jews across history, as there are many differences in the circumstances. I and I think Bill Rubinstein would dispute that Judaism does condone racial favoritism. We have sufferred to much from it in the past.
Here are my thoughts on your reply which I think is a straw man attack on Bill Rubinstein rather then a fair comment.
1) You make a fair point that Julian Leeser is entitled to his opinion on supporting the Voice however I do not see Bill Rubinstein here disputing that. I think he would agree with you here, So does I am sure everyone here.
2) Where does Bill Rubinstein not clearly agrees with you that the challenges faced by Indigenous Australians is important. His argument is that we can people can debate whether the Voice is the best way to accomplish that. His main point is that the Voice gives special privileges based on race. His main contention here is with racial privileges.
3) Bill Rubinstein is not disputing that these issues have persisted across multiple governments, only he is saying that it is occurring under the current Albanese administration.
4) Drawing a parallel to the history of Jews as a vulnerable minority is thought-provoking. However, I’d be careful equating the situations of Indigenous Australians and Jews across history, as there are many differences in the circumstances. I would dispute that Judaism would in anyway condon favouritism by race which brings us back to point 2. Where does Judaism does condone racial favoritism? We have suffered to much in the past from it.
There’s still plenty of racism as it stands today….confronted through a recent display for NAIDOC Week when an item was removed and it was only that I had a poster made up for a reward for it’s return [before it went up in the window] it was located……….Shame!
Then there were the books……