All comes in twos

Today is the day of the Voice referendum vote (written 14 Oct but published 15 Oct, so the outcome remains unknown if predicted).  It's quite cloudy and dark and windy.  Not too pleasant a day, but not raining.  I walk to the local primary school to vote with our two dogs.  They are stubborn and slow but not too bad this day despite the distance.  There are two sides of the vote, of course, Yes and No, and we've heard lots on that over recent months.  Coming in there were two reps plugging their positions but none too intrusive.  A middle aged man wore the No t-shirt; a younger woman wore the Yes t-shirt.  They both responded to our dogs (they are cute; it's common) and the woman offered to care for them while I went to vote.  There were some other dogs tied up so I took her offer.  Nice to see they were civil enough and we could all chat about dogs.  I handed over the dogs and some treats.  Voting was quicker than usual.  Maybe I chose the time well or most were off to MOAD = Old Parliament House to vote.  Certainly voting there would be interesting.  I came back and the two chatted with me, about how the dogs went, how he'd had a long hair as a kid, how dachshunds were bred to hunt badgers, how they'd got a treat.  Then a walk home.  I'm awaiting an expected win by the No-s.  I remember the last referendum, on the Republic, and how Howard had managed that one and how the Republican movement had split.  Like this time.  And how "don't know, vote no" is a mighty river to cross.  For something so little and so undemanding, so powerless.  So what of the twos?  First up is two choices, Yes or No, an inevitability but a demanding hill to climb for any change, especially with two opposing political sides taken.  Second is disagreement on each side, especially the call for a more radical position that results in no change, so no Voice but also no Treaty.  Third is our two dogs and the pleasure of seeing the local reps for Yes and No able to talk to each other.  It's a sign of a relatively healthy democracy and country even while others despair.  Fourth is the two most recent referendums that have failed and how they have choked our ability or readiness to attempt constitutional change (you can add a third referendum under Hawke that also became a political football).  Maybe a fifth, for the ex-British colonies that have found some agreement with their indigenous peoples (Australia is one of the only Commonwealth countries without a treaty with its First Nations peoples  ATNS) and ex-British colonies that remain with British royalty as their head of state (Commonwealth realms Wikipedia).  I just wonder if the old joke of Britain getting rid of the monarchy before Australia will come to pass.  Thus was my outing this morning to vote.  Sadly I missed a pic of our Yes and No reps with our dogs so just a pic of Truffles and Chopper in their more normal habitat.

PS. Here's my recent letter to the Editor, Canberra Times (28 Sep 2023) relevant to the Voice, if slightly tongue in cheek: "Maybe we need more voices to Parliament, not fewer.  The Aboriginal Voice will have no power and presumably its arguments and requests will be reported with its own Hansard and Government and Parliament will make open decisions informed by this input.  But there are others with access to Ministers and pollies of which we know virtually nothing.  Why not create a Big Business Voice to Parliament so we know when and what they are asking for.  And why not others for miners, private schools, property developers, banks, professional services, unions, lobbyists.  Any other suggestions?"

PPS.  It's morning after the Referendum as I write this.  I am not surprised but I am disappointed.  What thoughts?  The ACT is the only area (not state, but territory, so somewhat impotent given the constitution) that voted for the Voice at individual and community level (~2/3 Yes).  Every other state and NT voted No and overall Australians voted ~2/3 No.  It's noted the ACT is the youngest and most educated population and this is some measure of why I like it here (despite the tram!).  As for politics, Albanese spoke of being "ambitious".  Surely, a Voice, an advisory committee, with no power is not ambitious (stop and think: how much less could our Indigenous peoples have asked for?).  It reminds me of Labor's climate action and more.  Maybe, ultimately, it's a winning strategy but it's disappointing in the meantime and I can only hope we don't lose it all from being too meek in the interim.  As for Dutton, his call for reviews on child sex abuse and expenditure smacks of blaming the underdog and he's laid plenty of blame, especially on Albanese.  All pretty obviously political to my ears.  Given recent politics here and overseas, all this is not unexpected.  And as for the radical No-s, what now?  If you can't get a powerless advisory committee in place, what can you achieve from a position dependent on 97% of others?  And as for our media and think tanks (both Warren Mundine ["symbolic declaration of war"] and Jacinta Nampijinpa Price ["... no ongoing negative impacts of colonisation"] are associated with the Centre for Independent Studies) and broader politics, I tend to desperation as with much else these days.  But desperation is easy: what action did I take?  Not much was required here in the ACT, but I was surprised by the misinformed elsewhere and did my little to carry out my "talking cure" (see The Pots!).  I doubt it worked.  And I did write my letter to the editor.  So Australia wakes up once again unchanged with the naysayers claiming just the approach was the problem, then presumably applauding their works at conservative conferences or on relevant boards.  Australia's basically a good place and Australians are basically good people, but it's easy given our wealth and we can be fearful and untrusting and so easily misled.  Referenda are big symbols so they can stop us in our tracks to ask of us and our future.  Our Brexit?  If so, just what is our future?