forwarded with permision From: "eva cox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Some notes for life matters tomorrow Fear of debate! Does talking about race issues create more bias or more acceptance? Last year one of the major factors in senator Harradine's decision to 'blink' and pass the native title legislation was his stated fear of a race election. Now we have the signs of a rerun of the same problems in the debate on what should go in the referendum. Public opinion polls suggest that a substantial 63% were prepared to see acknowledgment of Indigenous prior custodianship of the country in the constitutional referendum. However, the ARM and the ALP seem most reluctant to see this question put even though the PM has agreed it should be there. They seem to assume that the inclusion of the question will stir a race debate and end up losing the referendum. Even though more support the change to the preamble than the republic, some republicans feel that then possible controversy about race will damage the chances of a yes vote on the republic. Doesn't talking about race make it a problem? We have seen a lot more racism in the last year because it was on the agenda.Maybe it was because the government was ambiguous in its own views. If the PM is going to approve the inclusion of prior occupation, then presumably he will not suggest that this is favoring Aborigines. I've just looked at some data from a student survey last year on native title. It included about 300 respondents, just over 2/3 under 30. It's not a representative sample but it is a reasonable cross section. Lots of first time voters, some from the country, some coalition voters, some ALP, a bit better educated than the general population, about half male and female. Mostly from outer suburbs of Sydney. So the results are reasonable indicators of prevalent views. Firstly there are racists, some respondents had strong anti views and felt that aborigines were favoured, but another group were passionately pro Native title and reconciliation, and these probably were more proportionately in the group. The most interesting group for me was the 2/3 or so who basically were uncommitted. Most of these were either neutral or tended to be pro but were very unsure of their views. Won't a public discussion polarise them? Not likely if the native title one did not. If you look at the pro group, most had discussed the issue and wanted more information. Even the anti group had discussed it and wanted more information, however, we asked whether those with opinions had changes their views during the debate, The data suggest that the debate does change views (30%) and most of these 70% moving to neutrality or favourable (41%). Those who discussed the issue with others were most likely to change views. Over half the sample wanted more information, mostly those who had more favourable views and had already disciussed the issues. However, 42% of those who hadn't discussed the issue still wanted more information. While Democrat and ALP voters more were likely to discuss the issue. More than half of all voters did discuss it. The less engaged group of first time voters showed just over 1/3 discussing it. One in three of the hostiles wanted more information One in four of the indifferents Nearly 2/3 of the neutrals 70% of the favorable views. So as most said they were changes by more information and most of these were favorable changes, this suggests that the public is not likely to be pushed into racist debate which will create a backlash. On the polls results and these small indications, it is much more likely that a campaign for a yes vote to the inclusion of an acknowledgment of Aboriginal prior occupation is likely to pass and pass well, if there is bi-partisan support. But don't Aboriginal groups want more than that? They want their ownership acknowledged and their continued relationship? Yes, that is another issue! The wording is obviously a point of dispute, but that should be dealt with separately from the issue of whether a 'race' referendum will create damage. Yes, there are racists out there, but there is also reservoirs of goodwill amongst a very confused electorate. The Native Title debate was truncated because a white man decided he knew what was good for the nation against the wishes of the Aboriginal leadership. If there are resources spent on informing people, on engaging younger voters with the issues, then there should be shifts in attitudes towards more acceptance. If the PM is really prepared to commit to such recognition, it could be used to engage many of the uncommitted. What the survey showed was some interesting clear correlations between levels of engagement and better informed and more pro Aboriginal views. ------------------------------------------------------- RecOzNet2 has a page @ http://www.green.net.au/recoznet2 To unsubscribe from this list, mail [EMAIL PROTECTED], and in the body of the message, include the words: unsubscribe announce or click here mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Body=unsubscribe%20announce This posting is provided to the individual members of this group without permission from the copyright owner for purposes of criticism, comment, scholarship and research under the "fair use" provisions of the Federal copyright laws and it may not be distributed further without permission of the copyright owner, except for "fair use."
