The debate surrounding the Voice to Parliament has reached fever pitch. And for many of us, constructive conversations are hard to come by. But is this really because we can't agree or don't want the best for everyone? Or are we being played by a political apparatus that doesn't want us to look deeper at the unspoken economic issue at the heart of it all.
We all get to make a life-changing decision on Saturday the 14th of October. And getting beyond the headlines is critical if we want to get it right. In this conversation, Ryan, Terry and Mitch do their best to have a thoughtful discussion about internal and external obstacles that are getting in the way of clear thinking and constructive conversation.
Resources Mentioned:
👉 Uluru Statement of the Heart
👉 Fact Sheet: Constitutional Amendments
👉 The Voice Handbook
👉 Terry's Article: We're all 'Racist', Let's Fix it
Join the Private Podcast Community
Click here to access free courses and trainings, build new habits, and connect with us and others on the journey to financial self reliance.
Other links 👇
Money mentorship:
Click here to start putting what you've been learning into practice.
Corporate program:
Click here to find out more about our workplace program
Follow us on Instagram:
Click here to see behind the scenes of our business and learn more about personal finance in bite-sized chunks.
The debate surrounding the Voice to Parliament has reached fever pitch. And for many of us, constructive conversations are hard to come by. But is this really because we can't agree or don't want the best for everyone? Or are we being played by a political apparatus that doesn't want us to look deeper at the unspoken economic issue at the heart of it all.
We all get to make a life-changing decision on Saturday the 14th of October. And getting beyond the headlines is critical if we want to get it right. In this conversation, Ryan, Terry and Mitch do their best to have a thoughtful discussion about internal and external obstacles that are getting in the way of clear thinking and constructive conversation.
Resources Mentioned:
👉 Uluru Statement of the Heart
👉 Fact Sheet: Constitutional Amendments
👉 The Voice Handbook
👉 Terry's Article: We're all 'Racist', Let's Fix it
Join the Private Podcast Community
Click here to access free courses and trainings, build new habits, and connect with us and others on the journey to financial self reliance.
Other links 👇
Money mentorship:
Click here to start putting what you've been learning into practice.
Corporate program:
Click here to find out more about our workplace program
Follow us on Instagram:
Click here to see behind the scenes of our business and learn more about personal finance in bite-sized chunks.
Hey guys, welcome back to the passive income project. I told you I still had a pulse and we also said we're going to be publishing more frequently. So it's good to be two days out from the last episode, and today we're going to bring something a little bit different. I've got Terry here and I've also got Mitch here it's good to get all three of us on lads and we're going to be doing something a little bit different today. Terry, you've just written a post on LinkedIn which addresses a really important issue or decision that we're going to be making here very soon in Australia. Nate, what was it and what are we discussing today?
Speaker 2:Yeah, we've gone back and forth on whether we should talk about this because it's a decision we all face on the fourteenth with the referendum, and whether we want to vote yes for the boys or vote no, and I've been thinking about it a lot and conversations I've had with Mitch over the last month I've really influenced my thinking and I write to think and I end up just writing an article. The article was about how I was thinking about it and potentially around probably some of the things that haven't been discussed, maybe some deeper factors that are playing into some of the debate, some of the division that we're seeing and, I guess, just how I was kind of thinking about it. And it's interesting because that article is continuing to get impressions and views, but the likes on that article are quite low. So, to put this in context, this is my highest performing article that I've ever written, but it's only got 30 likes. It's got more than 8 and a half thousand impressions. My second highest performing article has 200 likes and 7000 impressions.
Speaker 2:I just think it's interesting like people are thinking about this.
Speaker 2:They know it's important, we know it's important, we just don't know how to talk about it.
Speaker 2:And probably the other reason why I wrote the article as well is I've struggled to have productive conversations with people about it, and I think it's very important to be able to have constructive conversations, because that is how you see the problem from all these different angles. But for a lot of those conversations it's kind of just degenerating to people wanting to be right, which means having to prove the other wrong. And I wanted to get beyond that, because for me, I just want to look back with pride on what we did at this time and I want to be able to speak with dignity when I talk about the decisions we made, and I think everybody does. I think everybody wants to get it right, and so I just wanted to throw in an angle that probably hadn't been talked about so that we could have a different conversation, because the ones we're having right now and the ones I'm seeing, just I think we're so much better than that, but the way it's all been framed for us is very unhelpful. So that's why I wrote the article.
Speaker 1:It's done that, I think, for a lot of people that have read it Nice, and I think it's so important here to kind of strip back some of the layers, because where we're getting, there's so much noise around this and we want to cut through that as much as we can. And one of the great things for me almost something that I'm proud of at the moment with the conversations that are being had is the fact that most people want the same thing. They want the best outcome for Indigenous First Nations people, for the relationship between all Australians, and that has been something that I felt like has been at the forefront. Definitely is outliers. Obviously there always is or exceptions to the rule, but that has been something that has stood out.
Speaker 1:But it is this decision that needs to be made, that is getting made, and obviously we've been chatting a lot around decisions in recent episodes about how to make them and how this is kind of tying into this one in particular.
Speaker 1:We're keen to kind of unravel and importantly also the role that obviously we have a financial or economic lens that we'd like to look through and to see how did that impact all of this at that level too. So we want to kind of speak to you know what that looks like. Importantly, you know, we don't want to put ourselves out there as activists in any way. We don't want to sound like we're beating a drum, influence your decision right before a referendum. That's not the what we're trying to do, but what we do want to do is we want to talk about how we're thinking about it. At the end, we will share what we're doing about it as well, and it's awesome to have you here, mitch, because you've actually got quite a unique perspective on this, given your background as well, mate, so we'd love to hear about it. What?
Speaker 3:is that background Morning fellas. Thanks very much for having me on. Yeah, my background, well, I grew up in Canola, canberra South to be exact. Pretty rudimentary place, stone's throw from the calm waters of Cornell or Camay, the birthplace of modern Australia. That is where Captain Cook was discovered by First Peoples in 1770.
Speaker 1:I love that. Did you see what I?
Speaker 2:did there Love it.
Speaker 3:So my high school was named after Captain Ship the Endeavour, and this is all situated in the Federal Electrode of Cook. The local council emblem is Captain James Cook's fancy hat and his pretty face. That is the Australia that I had grown up to know. That was how my lens of Australia was very much shaped and that kind of made a lot of sense when I looked around and realised that, ok, well, history's largely been written by the victor right. And when my bubble of origin was very much broken at about the age of 30, when I discovered that I'm Aboriginal and my great name was raised by nuns, my identity took, better say, a pretty big hit.
Speaker 3:What the journey kind of boiled down to was I had realised that I was living proof of some of the opinions that I held about Aboriginal people and that people had told me to hold about Aboriginal people were bullshit, because I was living proof of that and that was pretty gnarly. And that process of not knowing to knowing really had this spotlight effect, really did force me to shine the mirror and really examine and realise, hey, I'm massively othering myself. I am othering myself and that is why I can sit in conversations like I had with Terry, because I've been on that journey myself and I realised that Australia, at a macro level, is, in some respects, going on that journey as well. There is a process of discovery, there is a process of like well, the lights are coming on here. This isn't all what I thought it was. It wasn't easy, I promise you. It wasn't easy for me, but I'd like to make it a whole lot easier for other people, because that's the opportunity.
Speaker 2:And mate, it's probably your realisation that led to my realisation. To be honest, it was actually discussing that with you and what that was like. That led to this article. I have worked very closely with a lot of Indigenous athletes and seen the very best of what they can bring in that arena and they're actually unbelievably gifted when it comes to that their strength, their energy, their athleticism. I was watching Bobby Hill win the Norm Smith medal and I was saying to Elise this year I was like Bobby Hill is a tiny guy. When he gets near the football he makes everybody else look like a child. I don't know why, but it was always the case. It was always the case. And Shane Edwards is another one that I used to work with. He was a Richmond. He's like 70kg, ringing wet, but when he hit the bag for warms in games he would just shock my whole skeleton. But I'd have like Matthew Richards and hit me and I'd be like that guy's. Nothing, that's fine, that's easy, but Shane Edwards- I was scared of.
Speaker 2:I'd had like a lot of these experiences, but being able to work shoulder to shoulder with you and really understand what that was like, this has really helped me get an even deeper appreciation. And I don't even know how this happened, but it's where this article stemmed from was just a realisation that I was kind of a certain way, without knowing it, my whole life as well, and that's racist. Now I use the word racist and I use it with parentheses around it, because you and I having a discussion and once I'd had that realisation, I think I might have said something and realised, as I said it, how it might have been heard on your end, and then I've just said I don't mind me, I'm just a racist, well, something like that. And it was an off the cuff comment, but it stayed with me and I was like I am a racist and it sounds really bizarre because my whole life and the way I've been taught and the way I've been conditioned is like you're not a racist and I think a lot of people are the same, because in my mind I had equated racism with Hitler. Right? So if you're a racist, you and Hitler are the same and it's that big extreme.
Speaker 2:But when I'm reflecting on that and I sort of realised okay, there is this part of me that's missing something here and I had to accept it. I realised it's not just a part of me, it's a part of all of us. Racism is just a human label we've given to an animalistic instinct which is sameness equals safeness, difference equals dangerous, and in any dominant homogenous group there will be an unconscious bias towards that direction. That is just how humans are operating. So it's not unique to me that I'm racist and I didn't see it from that point forward. That actually was like walking through a curtain and looking back differently and going oh hang on, I'm not bad for being a racist, I'm just human. And for me to admit that I'm racist isn't for me to admit that I'm bad, it's just for me to admit that I've got a flawed, faulty brain that makes mistakes all the time. Once you know that, then you can start to move through it.
Speaker 2:And the big thing that I noticed was, I think before, when I was resistant to the label of racist, I think before I was more focused on being informed about issues like this, and there's a big difference between being informed and educated. For me, if you're focused on being informed, you're focused on being right. And so what do you do is you go and you collect narratives. You collect anything that confirms your strongly held beliefs that already exist. And that's exactly what I think I would have been doing Collecting those ideas, collecting those narratives, collecting whatever stats that made sense and arming myself without information.
Speaker 2:But after this, after kind of realizing that racism is not unique to me, it's inherent in all humans, I think. After that, I moved to a place of education and you've been a massive part in that process, just really trying to actually understand what this issue slash opportunity actually is. And that's very different, right, I'm not focused on secondary sources and news grabs and you know headlines and all that sort of stuff. I want to get beyond the headlines and I want to get to primary sources, and that journey has been mostly catalyzed by the discussions that we've been having in the articles, kind of extension of that. But the reason I wanted to share that is because that whole instinct just other ring it's not racism, it exists everywhere. Right, let me give you more examples.
Speaker 2:Racism OK, that's just you looking at other race and other ring, another race. You're different to me. That's dangerous, right? Sexism is you other ring, another sex, and it doesn't just work one way. So women face sexism in the workforce because historically they've been underrepresented.
Speaker 2:So when it comes to positions of power in corporate Australia they're underrepresented. They face an unconscious bias, a sexist bias, in the workforce. Right now. Men face an unconscious bias. They face sexism in the education setting because men and males are underrepresented there. So we know that kids in America, if you're a boy you're five times more likely to get suspended for the exact same issue that a female will same issue. So it's not distinct to certain groups, it's distinct to all of us and whatever the dominant group is has it and it just so happens to be. There were all the dominant group here, where the white anglis accent group. So we have to assume we all have it and we're doing it, whether we know it or not. And if you can accept that, then you can move from being informed and trying to be right, I think for me anyway to getting educated. That for me has proved to be all the difference.
Speaker 1:It is something that's sometimes easier said than done is definitely what I've picked up, and I know we had this conversation coming into this conversation, which was, I know, for me.
Speaker 1:Personally, I haven't felt like I wanted to have too much of an opinion on this, because I recognize that so much of what I've learned or picked up around this has been regurgitation from people that have been looking at secondary sources as well, and so it's like how do you actually distinguish between what is true and what is not?
Speaker 1:That fear for me? Around you know so many people that really express what they say around this. You can see that they are just regurgitating what, what has been shared by a particular group, and they haven't gone much deeper than that, and I'm sure you can picture you know your social feed there tends to be some types that do really want to shout it and telegraph what they think and the virtue signaling that goes along with that, and so like getting to what is a secondary source or getting to what is a primary source of information is actually quite a difficult thing to do, especially when you've got that layer of social signaling that goes on, but then also the political layer that sits on top of it, which is using this as a mechanism to support certain parties pursuits.
Speaker 2:Essentially, I think that's true If you're seeking information. I think it's actually very simple if you're seeking interaction, because Mitch is a primary source, right, that is I think the biggest thing. Being able to actually have one to one, real conversations with somebody from the minority, in that sense is getting to a primary source. That is the easiest way to cut through that stat clutter. I think I look and go.
Speaker 1:The ideal is that we all go spend time in a part of a community that is part of that group. You know somewhere in part of Australia that feels remote, it feels like they're impacted a lot by this, and so I do kind of see that as gone. You really, on the source, like you, should really immerse yourself in it, understand the stories, understand the impact or the issues that truly exist, and then hear it from both perspectives, which is so hard to do. So you do have to kind of speak to people's perception of that problem from a distance, which is really really tough, and that's why I know I've kind of had resistance around speaking to it.
Speaker 1:And this is what having this conversation with you, mitch, is so good, because obviously you've been able to access more insight to the actual issue itself than what I have, which is awesome to do. Let's try to do that. Let's get to some of that primary. I know this is where we're going to lean into education, like you said, terry, not just being informed but being educated, and really kind of get to like why this is happening now and where it's come from. I guess you know how the voices came to be, what's led us to this.
Speaker 3:There's a number of things, but I remember distinctly when Terry realized that this wasn't actually a political initiative, and I think it was when we were talking about the Euler of Statement from the Heart and how that's actually led to the voice and what it actually is and, importantly, what it's not and why. The journey Like why has this actually taken 10 years involved people from hundreds of different First Nations coming together in regional dialogues. What is this all about? And under the surface, this is actually about circumventing governments. It's actually a realization that the political apparatus isn't helping Indigenous outcomes, and the Euler of Statement from the Heart is an invitation to Australian people from First Nations Australians. That invites Australians to actually walk with First Nations people. Now we would be walking in a movement for a better future.
Speaker 3:The ask is to support a First Nations voice in the Constitution. This simply means the right to give advice on laws that affect First Nations peoples. So the First Nations voice needs to be built into the Constitution so that it can only be changed by us, the Australian people, not at the whim of government, and that is what we have seen over an incredibly long period of time across both sides of the government on a whim. Different bodies, different advisory functions have just been thrown out, and that's categorically what this is attempting to actually fix. And that's been a hell of a journey from all parts of Australia.
Speaker 3:Imagine the process of Federation, bringing together all the states, bringing everyone to the table across all the different territories, etc. Imagine doing that for hundreds and hundreds of First Nations, with the history that they have experienced in recent times and how their kind of perceptions of government and, ultimately, the outcomes that they're currently receiving or currently being felt, and coming together in this display of what I can only describe as gracious, in a very vulnerable ask to just walk with them into a better future. I actually find it fascinating and incredibly vulnerable that that's just the ask. It's not like we want this, we're going to take this or just walk with us. Like our people are incriminated at the highest rates in the world. We're not innately criminal people. Our kids are taken away from us at rates that are again the highest in the world and, in some areas, actually increasing. And for those statements to be articulated alongside, let's just actually figure this out together and just allow us to have a voice in that process.
Speaker 1:I'm actually just blown away, why Doing it without being combative is probably the gracious element to that, isn't it?
Speaker 3:Yeah, absolutely.
Speaker 2:You just look at the words coexist. And the word coexist is using the context of our sovereignty coexist with the British sovereignty. It's not saying ours supersedes yours, it's just saying ours exists with it. And then we want our kids to walk in both worlds and we invite you walk with us. These are all words that it's an olive branch, just like your neighbor, walking up to you and going, hey, can we figure this out?
Speaker 3:There's an ancient concept called the Deeree and absolutely love this concept and I've actually really resonated with it and it is the practice of deep inner listening and a quiet stillness, awareness and, importantly, waiting, and this is an almost spiritual skill that is based on respect and it describes a way of learning, working and togetherness that is informed by the concept of community and reciprocity. This is foundational to indigenous culture and leadership is underpinned by this practice, involves really respectful listening, and I don't think it's by chance that this is what's needed here, like listen to the actual ask. What is the actual ask? And I think Aboriginal people are actually putting incredible faith in the Australian public and an incredible display of vulnerability into this process of simply asking to be listened to by us, the Australian public.
Speaker 2:And then, like you can look at the coming back to the words in the statement, you can actually invert the words to get a sense of how they actually feel and you can see that this is actually a plea as well, because they talk about wanting to be self determined. So the implication there is we don't feel like we are determining our own state. We want to be empowered, we don't feel empowered, we feel disempowered. We want to be respected, we don't feel respected. But they've used the positive frame in the statement and I think that that actually speaks to how gracious they are, because they could have said the other and said this, this, this, this, this, but they said this is what we want, we want this and this is the future we see that's a positive frame. And so if you look beyond it to me like, read it, reread it, read it.
Speaker 2:And, mitch, you just mentioned that concept of the dairy. I just think and I wonder how much of that had to be practiced to even get to this statement, because I know not all those people would have agreed that they would have been dealing with a lot of history, a lot of baggage, conflict, disagreement, even between groups, of course, how they actually see it and then to be able to come down to a statement like that and to make it so clear in its intent. That's not easy. So they're not asking us to do anything that they haven't done. This would have had to have been done a lot right.
Speaker 3:It's no surprise that it has taken the time that it has taken. This isn't like a flash in the pan. It might be in the zeitgeist now, but this is like a tenure process. And that talks to the difficulty and depth of that listening that was required to actually get to this point.
Speaker 2:Once they've gotten to this point and they've shown that much investment, this is something to really understand. This was backed by partisan. That means both parties agree that this was a good idea and both parties wanted to push this through. So something's changed between there and now, and its politics is what's changed, and Peter Dutton was a part of the group that actually paid for the people to do the report, to actually figure out what is the first version of the voice need to look like. Sign the check for that. Sign the check for that. So this hasn't changed. What's happened is the makeup of government has changed, and that, to me, was the biggest realization, because I reckon the first time this came, I'll be honest I just thought hey, look, this is Anthony Alvarez. He's trying to make out like he's some do good, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Here he is trying to create some sort of image for himself. He's just the last guy in a long line of guys that's trying to get it across the line. That's what I look.
Speaker 3:I think you've summed that up really well. This is a long process. It's not something that's just come to be. Yeah, he is the last person in this relay, but we could have been having the relay together all along. And that that change in the political dynamic is really interesting, because this could have been a non-issue. This could have been bipartisan.
Speaker 2:There's one more thing I want to just touch on with this statement, mate, that I'd love your educational Macarota. Can you tell us more about that?
Speaker 3:Macarota, the concept of coming together after a struggle.
Speaker 3:So we would be foolish to think that there hasn't been a struggle to date in and around indigenous affairs. The concept of Macarota is ultimately about moving forward. It's recognizing that we have had a struggle and that on the other side of that struggle we can come together and move forward together more united. And for me, that concept is lost in this debate. How many times have you guys heard that discuss the fact that indigenous people see this as an opportunity for Macarota To come together after a struggle?
Speaker 1:No, First, I've heard to be honest Just now and look like I don't think I'd be going out on a limb here to say that there's a pretty broad, sweeping agreement or recognition that government isn't going to be the one that gets this done. The issues that persist seem to be beyond what government is capable of, and so it appears to be that going around of government going to a referendum, being able to push it to the people to decide, and basically betting on the fact that what we said at the start is true, which is everyone does want the right outcome. And can we as a group kind of step around political influence essentially to get the outcome?
Speaker 3:It's the recognition that the government not so I can't actually get this done, like the tennis that we are seeing right now is exactly why the voice is required. If you're feeling like the voice has divided us, can something that doesn't actually exist yet actually divide us Like this doesn't exist. So is it this thing, or is it the way we're being told to see this, that is dividing us Because it doesn't exist?
Speaker 2:So I think back to same sex, plebiscite, same thing, and it was like a big big deal. Big big deal. It's going to cause all sorts of problems. Everyone just gets on with their lives, don't they? So you're 100% right. It's not the thing itself that's dividing us, it's the way we've been told to look at the thing. And here's what I think the most important thing is you can't tell someone what to think, but what you can do is tell them what to think about. So what will be being told to think about? Well, is there enough detail? And it's probably worth, like, calling out some of these? We'll talk to some of the risks or objections that we kind of see through it, and I'd love to get your take and make sure that we sort of address these as well, because some of these are real and some of them are massive headfakes, aren't they?
Speaker 3:Oh yeah, one of the interesting kind of thought experiments that I've tried to apply to this. To make sense of what's actually going on here. I think about it from a business context and I think about the work that we do. What customers share with us informs what we do and how we improve their outcomes and help them smash their goals. I'm not sure of too many businesses over the history of business that have been uber successful in just flat out ignoring their customers. Like blockbuster tapes will be sweet. I worry about this internet thing. It's all good Kodak. People are not going to move online with pictures Like what's sweet? Instagram. Now we are talking about outcomes, about a group of people who are not informing the problems that are being solved or how they're being solved. Would we build our business without consulting with couples, without consulting with individuals on how they're engaging with their product, what they actually need, the things that they want to see from us, what matters?
Speaker 3:to them what's working, what's not. If we just had our headphones on and just weren't listening at all, how much success do you think we would have as a business?
Speaker 2:About as much as we've had in politics with this. Let's call it an opportunity, because the amount of time, energy, money that's been wasted on initiatives that haven't panned out and, like you said before, it keeps getting thrown out. So we'll start a new thing, spend some money on that, we'll just reinvent the wheel again, start from scratch, start from scratch, so we don't actually get the chance to compound any knowledge, any intelligence, any wisdom, any relationships, and so we don't have. We're moving every time back to the start, and it's actually that compounding and relationships is going to improve the decisions over time. So that, to me, is the biggest problem, because we're not. It's called the voice for a reason, because it's like we want to be heard, right. So if we could just do that, then what could we actually get out of it? That, to me, is the opportunity.
Speaker 3:All the best business that I've worked in have had customer voice streams. Yeah, they're intently obsessed with listening to the customer obsessed, I would say. That is the one thing that I have experienced in my business career that has separated the phenomenal from the so-so. It's an obsession to listen to an obsession.
Speaker 2:I mean, I think about next door to us, building a house and they're doing development. There's things going on right now as we're recording. There's builders over there making noise, and so you know, the analogy for me is if your neighbor, if I, came up to you and said, hey, I see you doing a bit of building, would you mind letting me know maybe some timelines when you think these work and they're going to be doing the most loudest work, because I do a bit of work from home at times, going to have the kids around. I mean it's going to impact me. So do you mind just keeping me in the loop on some of the bigger decisions, just like letting me know? That is literally as simple as what this is, isn't it? And if you're making decisions that are going to impact me, just like get me in the room so I can actually tell you what, how we can work around it, how we can get the better outcome, all of it.
Speaker 1:That's it. The good thing is, you do know your neighbor there, terry, next door, and they are clients. You can throw stones at him if they made plans.
Speaker 2:I had the Gantt chart, everything.
Speaker 1:Love it Good stuff.
Speaker 1:Hey, I want to shift in gears because I want to balance this a little bit and speak to, I guess, the risks that come with this change or the risk of you know kind of pursuing this, because obviously this there's a lot of opinion being shared around what it could mean and the risks that come with it.
Speaker 1:I want to call out some of the things that do exist. I'd like to start with calling out one that seems apparent, which is the thought that the pendulum could swing too far the other way. I say, then, the sense that could see a scenario arising whereby members of parliament who have spoken against or gone against the advice of the committee of the voice basically being called out on it and being called out on a public stage, Because we have seen that the group of people that have been able to bring it to where it is right now have done a fantastic job of building awareness and using media to do so. So you could see a scenario in which, going against the recommendations or the advice of that committee, people could be labeled and called out for having done so, and so you know there is that risk that I see that could come up at some point in time and it's something that I have heard as well Do you guys have a view on that, On that being an issue or that playing out?
Speaker 3:I think it's a really fascinating perspective and really the judge of that, like, let's say there is, for instance, three decisions that go against the voice, it will be the Australian public that are ultimately the ones to form a consensus on whether that decision making was racist or not. And let's say it was called out that it's racist, that opinion is one for the Australian public to make. At the moment, those decisions don't have a platform. There may be racist decisions being made that no one is aware of. Actually, the outcomes of the voice will come down to the quality of its contribution to the parliament and executive government and if the influencing ability or logic isn't there, then it's the government's job to make the decisions, like if it knows.
Speaker 3:That doesn't mean it's racist. It means that you would hope and I'm sure we will see play out over time that the information has been considered, it's been listened to, because, let's remember, it's not being listened to at the moment. It's being listened to, it's being analyzed, it's being appraised and decision making is happening. Yeah, there's certainly a risk that, if there's no, it is called out as racism. But then really it's over to the Australian public to actually say, well, yeah, it is or it isn't a racist actual decision making process, because that's kind of at the core of the issue.
Speaker 1:And this is where I'd love to see like those recommendations be made public to the people, because I guess the devil's advocate in me kind of senses that.
Speaker 1:How rare is it that you actually see reason and logic behind a decision shared with the Australian people?
Speaker 1:When it comes to political decisions it's not, it's all about kind of swaying emotion to push you in one direction or the other. It's very rare that you get handed a document that says, hey, this is what it could do, here's the opportunity assessment, here's the positive things that could come from this decision, here's the risks that are associated with it, and kind of wrap that in a way that you can use reason and logic as a voter or an Australian. And so that would be a fantastic thing to see, wouldn't it have that shared on the public stage, written in a way that people can form their own judgment, placed on a primary document that would never be complete. It's not possible with decisions. There's still uncertainty that comes with every decision that you make. But at least given a way to think about that problem that's not just being pushed in a certain direction based on emotion, not having to choose sides on that, instead just to make up that mind for yourself. This is where the opportunity over time is.
Speaker 2:you know it's all a way finding process right. So if it's not working, then you change the way it's working, but it can't actually be changed that it exists. So it's like the pendulum may swing too far the other way, but that's actually how you start to find where the balance is. So I kind of don't disagree that there may be a risk that it goes too far that way, but it's been the other way for a long period of time, and so if we go far the other way, we start to find what that sort of middle ground looks like. We can't actually do it without a way finding process. So the actual concern already exists in the inverse, and so we're not really talking about something that doesn't already exist. We're dealing with something that exists. We know what the impacts of that are. We don't know what the impacts of the other side are, but the only way we figure out what the best middle part is is actually by going through that process. There's no way you're going to optimize this from day one. That's just an impossibility.
Speaker 1:Okay, so we definitely see that things can overcorrect. What other risks do you see? Is there anything else that kind of comes to mind when you think about the risk of, I guess, the action being taken? What's popping up?
Speaker 2:I guess you could call a risk or an objection that I hear coming up a bit is this is just going to slow everything down. That's another layer in government, another layer of bureaucracy, and I could kind of see the logic of that on the surface level, but everything isn't moving anywhere. That's the whole point of the voice is that we actually haven't made any progress. So literally anything we do differently that could create some progress is moving fast. That's kind of the way I would answer it, mitch. What are your thoughts on that one?
Speaker 3:Yeah, there's a really interesting outcome through COVID where Indigenous communities were actually given a voice on how to manage COVID through communities and it's a real outlier because 10 years earlier the last major flu that swept through, that consultation wasn't actually sought and the outcomes that were achieved were vastly different and COVID moved pretty fast. Right, the response was pretty quick. Listening doesn't have to take 20 years.
Speaker 1:It's just being heard and just to confirm the outcome this time through COVID was a lot better, A lot better, yeah, far better.
Speaker 2:It was expected that it was going to be a real problem for Indigenous people.
Speaker 3:yeah, Pretty interesting outcome, when a voice was actually sought out and the recommendations were actually implemented.
Speaker 1:The outcomes were there.
Speaker 3:Pretty interesting.
Speaker 1:Another thing that's popping up for me here, thinking about risks, is I did watch the debate that was had on Channel 7 on the weekend between the yes no and really kind of brought it all to the surface. There was a lot of commentary around the introduction of the voice getting in the way or slowing down the time it takes to getting to a treaty and the treaty basically serving a much greater purpose than the voice itself. I know I don't understand a treaty well enough to actually comment on it or this process. What have you guys seen in terms of, I guess, what the impacts of a treaty would mean and then how the voice would impact that treaty as well?
Speaker 2:Mitch, I think from your point of view, maybe you could just talk us through the different parts of the voice, because the voice is the first part of a conversation and there's three parts of this whole thing, so maybe this is a good chance to talk through that.
Speaker 3:Yeah, it's really interesting. So the process is threefold the voice, truth telling and a treaty process. And it's not treaty or nothing else, or the voice means we can't get a treaty. It's a process just like any other kind of process that you go through as a business, and the way that I've certainly viewed it is it's not if there's a voice. That isn't a treaty. It's a process of compounding and I think if we can demonstrate better outcomes through a voice and we can start actually having meaningful conversations that allow the truth to be told, then outcomes attached to a treaty are far more likely to be productive. And if yes to a voice feels hard without any of the consultation process, progress that hopefully is made by providing a voice on Indigenous outcomes. I don't see how a conversation right now about treaty is suddenly like easy or just a given.
Speaker 2:I don't think that outcomes better and all the concerns people talk about and the fears around you know they're coming to get our land and that sort of thing. Those fears actually exist. They're more likely to happen. They're sort of materialized in a world where we just go straight to a treaty. There's no relationship building before we get there.
Speaker 1:Yeah, I love it. When I did first hear that raise because it was the first time I thought about it and, you know, don't necessarily understand treaties, or you know I guess my initial thought was like if we include, obviously, the commentary around First Nations in the Constitution instruction of the voice does that actually pull us together into one Constitution, or one group of people together, create that unity? And then does that mean that it's actually not possible to have a treaty because all of a sudden it's not between two parties, it's one party, if that makes sense, or one group of people. I'm assuming that's wrong.
Speaker 2:Yeah, I mean we still have a treaty if they're in the Constitution in that way, for sure.
Speaker 3:The changes to the Constitution, to be really clear, don't state anything to do with treaty. It doesn't say that this is a process of making treaties and it doesn't state that this precludes treaty from happening. It's not a treaty this step around the voice.
Speaker 1:I did read the amendments. That's the first thing I did. I was like all right, let me actually read what we're talking about, including here, which you know. You read it and go. Well, that just makes sense. All the other discussion that comes off the meaning making, that happens thereafter. But that was my initial impression, that if we did this then a treaty wasn't possible. It just doesn't sound like that's the case.
Speaker 2:Yeah, the way it's presented, it's easy to make you think that, really easy to make you think that, and that's why it's so interesting. You know, like you can't be told what to think, but we can be told what to think about, and you don't even have to actually say it, you can just imply it.
Speaker 3:And at the end of the day they are really different things. One is about governance, one is about treaty. They're not actually the same thing, so they fundamentally shouldn't be treated the same thing.
Speaker 1:To continue to my role of devil's advocate on this and kind of drawing out some of these risks. Another one that I saw was the I don't know if you've seen the footage of Bob Hawke basically saying that to have a true democracy, to have a pure democracy in which you know everyone's votes are equal. Firstly, you know, are we fans of that system? I think we are that if one group of people has more influence over decisions than others, then that can lead to, obviously, issues long term or just gets in the way of a true democracy, if you like. I think this is kind of very unique circumstances whereby you know, it's actually about how we do make decisions going forward as two groups, but as one group at the top of that. But do you see any risk around influence on democracy itself?
Speaker 2:It actually probably just describes what exists One group's got too much influence. You got 3%, is it Mitch? 3% of the population is indigenous, so it literally has to be that the dominant homogenous group is going to have a dominating influence, so that that very concern it actually necessitates the need for the thing that it's concerned about.
Speaker 3:Because ultimately, that dynamic right now is producing suboptimal and inequitable outcome. Australia's built on fairness right. We all like to think there's a fair go. If we think that the current structure delivers a fair go for indigenous Australians, it's six to go play on. There's a real risk for them. We might actually correct that disadvantage and inequality by listening. I don't see the voice suddenly providing so much power to a group, primarily because, if you understand it, they only have to be listened to. It's not actually a decision making voice. They don't have the power to actually say this is what we should do. It's simply about sharing a perspective.
Speaker 1:It's not going to lead to a dictatorship. Who call Good?
Speaker 3:stuff. There's another risk that I'm hearing a lot of, and that is, you know, indigenous people are really well represented in parliament already. It's like over indexing of indigenous people within parliament and therefore like indigenous voices represented within parliament. I find that very interesting because the people that are in parliament are representing the people that voted them in, which aren't necessarily Aboriginal people. They're there to represent a party and they're there to represent a voice for the area that voted them in. Not a single body or initiative about a single set of outcomes. They've got conflicting priorities and this is ultimately about ensuring that politics doesn't actually get in the way of the outcomes.
Speaker 1:Yeah, yeah, let's flip the switch a little bit. It's good to explore the risks. Also want to explore the rewards for everyone. Ultimately, the one that stands out to me is the better use of public money. There's no doubt there is a lot of misappropriation of public funds and you know the government is very good at spending millions, hundreds of millions. Sometimes you hear the billions being thrown in the mix for projects that you'd think that private companies or private individuals would be able to solve for a fraction of the price, and I see this as being something that kind of who knows if it'll directly impact. But it'd be good to see a pattern interrupt, essentially something else that can penetrate that issue in terms of use of public funds and this matter obviously directly, and who knows that could lead into impact in other areas as well. What other rewards do you see?
Speaker 3:I think there's a number, I think more accountability for indigenous outcomes being driven by indigenous people. To me that's really obvious and can't see how that doesn't improve outcomes.
Speaker 1:This one stands out to me in the sense that I feel like there's the narrative that plays a big effect here. Having spent a bit of time up around Northern Territory, out at Tewee Islands, played football there for a little bit, kind of just got to interact and get a feel for the story. This is years ago now but there was very much a sense of displacement. That's happened a lot about mining, being out, that land, getting mined and then money, basically royalties, being fed through and then the rejection of that, which is like you're paying us off. We want to reject the help and the support or whatever you're giving us, the white goods, because where it's come from and seeing how that's kind of tied into, obviously, government public money as well. And my sense is that the voice helps kind of change or maybe just influence that narrative just a little bit so that it does feel like it's not necessarily coming from the outside in, but it's creating a fairer system from the top down. Does that sound fair?
Speaker 3:Absolutely, yeah, it's decisions with not decisions to add to the real distinction.
Speaker 2:We sort of already spoken to making sure that, whatever solutions we come up with, a fit for purpose. The biggest one for me and this is one I think is the biggest opportunity is just unlocking this ancient wisdom which we just overlook. You know, I've been really lucky to have a few experiences and exposures during my time to really understand, I guess, how indigenous people have developed very sophisticated technology and I use the word technology there just to explain any sort of scientific process that has led to the practical application of knowledge that improves an outcome. And so what is indigenous wisdom other than thousands of years of way, finding wisdom that figures out how to do more with less? And the best example I could give is an experience I had going to the you yanks up here north of Geelong, and they talked to us about terra nullius, which is like if the land is empty and it's not farmed and it's not inhabited in any way, then you can have it Right and bastardizing that and probably getting parts of it wrong, but directionally, that's what it's about. And so what they told us was so white man came in here and we were like, well, this isn't farmed, so we'll claim it.
Speaker 2:And they said well, their definition of farming and the way that farms very different to the way we do, and he said so. The way that we do it, he says they till the earth, they got a sweat, they got to do all this work and this sort of thing is as. We don't do any of that stuff, and so we've learned thousands of years that this is where the water runs in this valley. We know where the streams converge. So what we do is we get the seeds, we crack the seeds, we put them in the rocks where we know the water is going to run through and past, and we let the water do our planting for us. That's how we farm. That would be one of my examples of like this kind of wisdom that we kind of miss out on, because that doesn't just apply here. That's about just working with nature. But, mitch, you were talking to me about another one the other day, about the way they farm fish.
Speaker 3:And so when I found out of my grandma's, like where is this place? I've got to go check it out. And I jumped in the truck storm 10 hours northwest of Sydney and arrived. Debris and arrived and I spoke to Brad at the museum there. I was like what are all these signs, mate? What's all this stuff in the river? What's going on? He said, mate, you're looking at the oldest man made structure on earth. I said what he said yeah, mate, it's older than the pyramids. I actually thought he was taking the piss. He said, oh, come on, I'll show you.
Speaker 3:So we walked down to the river and there's these pools, like kind of massive stretch of these pools, and the way it works, the fish stream up the river. Each kind of community tribe grew brews, a real melting pot of different tribes, had their own pool, fish streams into the back of the pool. Hey, Presto, there's dinner. And that was just one example. I was like, OK, wow, that's blown my mind. Older than the pyramids. How efficient is that? And to think that that's right in Australia had no idea. Blown away. I need to learn more Fire stick farming, All right. So, wow, this sounds interesting. Black duck foods are doing that at the moment. I want to go check that out. So I recently went down there to understand how are they using fire to grow indigenous grasses to make flour. I was blown away. So this flour not only does it taste unreal, but it has the protein percentage of chicken breast.
Speaker 2:I'm a big fan of protein, so this flour really, really hit a sweet spot for me.
Speaker 3:And I just thought, wow, this is unreal. How is this not something that we're really making the most of it at a really big scale and driving economic outcomes for Aboriginal people through this? And that is just scratching the surface. But seeing the impact that the fire had on regenerating earth country and, importantly, what kind of sprung up off the back of that fire process man, I was blown away. It's like an ancient startup that really is sequestering more carbon than any actual grass that we have Mad tick and it tastes unreal, unreal. You know, these are just two really basic examples that I think gosh, how much else is there that lettuce not actually utilize the opportunity cost of not realizing what's there to me, like I find it frightening.
Speaker 2:The one that I want to add to it and it does sort of segue us into. I guess the economic part of this is there is a there is a wisdom around fires like five years ago I drove out of Bateman's Bay literally through fire because they had stopped burning off and they'd stopped doing any work to kind of make sure that the things didn't get too overgrown, and it stopped any fires before they got started and that ended in a massive fire. My dad nearly lost his life in that fire. We literally drove through fire on the way out and I had no idea how that was going to go. I actually thought we lost contact with him for five hours and I was like he's done and Jeffy Paul Serenithan though he does he doesn't, but it does speak to indigenous people. They have practices around this where they let fires burn when they need to. They even create a fire if they have to to be able to manage overgrowth, shrubbery and also get more out of the soil, and there's a real wisdom around that that actually links to the economics of the problem that we're actually facing.
Speaker 2:This is what I actually talked about in the article, the thing that nobody's talking about, the best way to illustrate it, I think, is just a hypothetical. So imagine this. Imagine every year everyone in Australia is getting wealthier Freedom of time, freedom of money, freedom of location Everything is getting better for everyone all the time. Then this idea of the indigenous voice comes up. Do you reckon there'd be an issue, or it'd be one of those things where we go? Oh yeah, we'd look at what's in the Constitution. Like Ryan, what you just said, I read what you said. That all makes sense. Let's pass that through. I reckon most people like get no props. So for me, the thing that's not being talked about here is why is it an issue? It's because the pie's shrinking, it's not growing.
Speaker 1:Do you think that that would go to a referendum or you're saying it would be passed through, adapted in without? I think if it did go to a referendum.
Speaker 2:It wouldn't be a debate, It'd just be like well, that makes sense, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, I think politically we'd probably still see the same problem if it was coming to every person. Because here's the thing like this guy, Robert Truthers he's an evolutionary biologist. He says we're wired to deceive ourselves about our deeper motives, and so what's happening right now is that these narratives are being created, and I want to show this pattern because I think it speaks to the real problem. Post COVID big business profiting off the public. Now, how did that happen? Government stimulus going to the wrong people, not really qualifying it, creating competitive advantages where none existed, Qantas being one of the biggest examples of that basically granted the monopoly on international flight.
Speaker 2:What about this one? Immigration's out of control again. And the government policy? And the one that's coming up now? You're going to hear more and more about this renters versus owners, the people that own houses, the people that don't own houses. So here's the pattern Haves versus have not. Now, when the economic pie is growing, the gap between haves and haves not it's not really that big a deal, because everybody's kind of getting better every year, but when the economic pie is shrinking, conflict is the rule. So, whether it be the voice, you could just swap the voice out for anything else we're going to see the same populism, because that's how people and societies react in these times.
Speaker 2:And what happens is our attention is being directed to the narratives that speak to the differences between haves and have not. So if you identify as a have, you are going to be attracted by and collect information that reflects your deep internal sort of bias towards anything that suits you and serves you. It's a self-serving bias, right? You don't even know why you believe in no, but you just do, and you just do strongly, and this is one thing that's not discussed. Same thing goes the other way If you identify as a have not, you'll be attracted to narratives that talk about what's fair and sharing the pie, because you've got a self-serving bias there as well.
Speaker 2:Now, nobody wants to admit this, because we're wired not to want to know. It's better for us to delude ourselves about these deeper motives, because it's socially dangerous to talk about what you really want. So you don't say to the partner that you're courting hey, I'm going to buy the expensive meal for you tonight, so you think I'm a better prospect longer term and maybe we might have sex. You actually never say that, but that's why you do it, Don't you? So everyone deludes themselves and what's happening is we're getting hacked by these narratives that speak to those deeper motives we're not even aware of. So if you've got strong feelings that you can't articulate, this is all part of a big reason why and we're all kind of getting played here, because the big thing is all these problems created by government it's like a big magic trick. Everybody point fingers at each other and all our energy is on like who's going to be right, who's wrong, and we actually not solving the real problem here and who's creating the problem. So it actually serves the political apparatus to have us at each other this way, because that way we don't look at them and we don't challenge them and we don't demand what we should be demanding, which is why is that pie not growing?
Speaker 2:Why has it continued to shrink? Why is our generation the first one that is likely to be worse off than its parents in terms of real purchasing power, freedom of time, all the things that matter for wealth? Why is that the case? It's the case because we've continued to kick the can down the road economically and coming back to that foreign allergy. We haven't embraced nature's wisdom, which is you need to let fires burn from time to time, and every time there's been a problem, we keep kicking the can down the road. We keep creating more stimulus. More fiscal policy has created too much money and we don't have enough productivity to match it. So the inflation that we're all facing, the drop in purchasing power that we're all having to deal with, that's making us feel poorer and angry and annoyed and amenable to all these narratives. That's happening because of those fiscal policies and monetary policy.
Speaker 2:And I find it hilarious that Phil Lowe, the guy who's been telling us for the last four years, don't worry, I've got the tools, trust us, we've got it On his last day when he walks out the room these are quotes, direct quotes. Monetary policy is blunt and uneven. In principle, I think there's a better way of doing it. It's a big issue and I was a bit disappointed that the RBA didn't tackle it. So basically, the guy's saying we've got the tools, trust us, is saying the tools don't work and we need to rethink the whole thing. To me, those quotes are the most underquoted quotes, since rates are going to be lower for longer. That is the real problem that sits underneath all of this, and we're all kind of being played, I reckon, and all our energy directed each other.
Speaker 2:But the only way out of it and this is coming back to the opportunity right, why don't I write this article? What's the biggest opportunity Right now? I don't think we have a cohesive identity, because we're at each other, and if we did have a cohesive identity, we would be able to exploit the opportunities that we have as a country and we'll be able to solve the problems better. But instead we've sort of been conditioned to look at each other as the enemy instead of actually solving the real problem, and that, for me, is the biggest thing.
Speaker 2:That's the angle that I wanted to throw into this conversation. Now I don't delude myself and think that that's everything. I'm just saying that's an angle that isn't discussed. That's an angle that no one's talking about. There's way more to it. This is not to diminish the real issues that have been estering, that have caused the need for a voice. It's just to talk about why we're struggling with this conversation and decision. That's really what I wanted to throw out there. Does that do a good job of explaining it from your point of view, guys?
Speaker 1:Yeah, I think I'll just add to that. You called out the fact that if the pie was getting bigger, would this actually be a debate, or would this get to this point where it is creating some level of division? And while I do think that it would in some degree, based off the fact that there's always an unevenness in terms of where people are at and we think about that discussion we've had around the medic desire, social gravity and the fact that it's always relative between you and the people around you, or the people within your proximity and beyond, and how you relate to them and compare and use that as a measuring stick. I sense that it is human nature basically to do those things and it's always going to exist, whether we like it or not, or if we may find the best system. Even still, it is innate within us.
Speaker 1:But the amount of angst and fury and probably aggression that comes out in the debate is much more heated because of the economic pie shrinking than otherwise. I don't think you'd disagree with me on that, but you definitely see that if things were as a whole getting better in real terms, like you mentioned, then it would be a lot more of a level conversation and you wouldn't see. You wouldn't go to Fitzroy or Brighton and compare the amount of yes or no signs that exist. The two areas that represent probably two different groups on that have and have not perspective. And so the very interesting frame, seeing it from an economic sense, not undermining the problems that do exist and the issues that needs to be addressed. But if there was a financial system that was getting better with time and serving more people in the right way, would we be able to work through that without the angst? Absolutely I think so.
Speaker 2:I think we'd be a lot more compassionate to each other and we'd be a lot more generous and we'd be a lot less triggered. So, basically, what I'm saying is the way these arguments are being presented to us and the way you're, what you're being told to think about is designed to trigger you. Now, that's conscious or unconscious, it doesn't really matter. That's what's happening. And so if you can get beyond that, get beyond feeling enraged with the opposite or the other, then you can start to think. And if you can start to think, then you can actually reason and solve these problems. And that's, to me, what I think we're missing right now.
Speaker 3:Yeah, the article really blew me away. When I first read it. I think I called you and I was like where did that come from? Because I'd not seen that perspective even remotely before, and when it was kind of played out as to how our biases were hacking us, being used against us and the risk of populism and us being so divided and turning against each other instead of actually turning to the government and holding them accountable, I had to again question a lot of the assumptions that sat under my thinking and it did help me actually realize what's going on. What's actually a play here? What is this actually about?
Speaker 2:It's just a theory Robert True's theory about the sort of the way we're wired to deceive ourselves about our deeper motives. I don't know how those things connected. When you rang me, I said I don't even know where it come from. To be honest, it just felt like it wasn't me, it just sort of just happened. But in terms of being able to think through that problem, I don't think I could have done that without the discussion that we'd had and the realization about other ring, because I wasn't thinking. I was just, like I said, trying to inform myself and looking at the surface level, taking snippets from the media, headlines, whatever it is, and collecting all that to reinforce my deeply held beliefs. So I don't think I could think about it. So, to answer the question where it had come from, it came first from that but then second from I don't actually know.
Speaker 1:I can't actually explain it Through conversations with God type moment, if anyone's I don't know. Yeah, cuss up. I think that's captured that very well. Last thing I want to touch on and kind of lead you guys into, and also probably lean into myself, is what we're doing about it based off what you know, what you understand. How do you use that going forward? What's that look like?
Speaker 3:Maybe start me the image so the very first process for me was to fundamentally read the four parts of the constitutional amendment like word for word it takes 10 seconds and then really understand. Okay, what does that actually mean? What are we recognizing, what is the guarantee, what's the purpose and what's the detail? And applying that with what are the outcomes that we can expect with a yes? What are the outcomes we can expect with a no? And really thinking through what is the intent of this, what is the Australia that we want to see?
Speaker 3:And recognizing and really getting under the skin of what outcome do I think gets us closer to that Australia that I want to see for my kids, for myself, for people that have comes that aren't like you and me, that are not others. They're Australians. And from that perspective, I only see one way. I only see progress in one option. I've not seen how progress comes with a no. So, with all of the thinking that I have done and with all of the risks attached to a yes, I don't see a better option. So I'm voting yes.
Speaker 1:Nice, Terry. I feel like I'm mediating now. Just jump in, terry, I'll be out of me bit.
Speaker 2:Yeah, thanks for that man, I'm the same. Obviously, I talked to it earlier about like getting beyond the secondary sources to primary sources, yourself being the most important primary source for me. Another source that I have found useful and I would recommend is the Voice Handbook. It's a very small book. It'll probably take you two hours to read. I reckon you're going to waste way more than two hours between now and Saturday. You'll waste it probably scrolling social media or something like that.
Speaker 2:But I found that to be very educational, very, very educational, because it takes you through exactly how the whole thing happened. We kind of talked to some of it here today, but then it also answers all of the questions, all of the questions you might have about the specifics you might want to need to be able to make a decision, and that is from the people who actually informed that whole thing. So if you want to get to a better source than news, then newscomau or whatever. That would be one that I'd recommend, and I'm going to continue to follow those sources and, in terms of like, I'm just going to continue to educate myself with this stuff. I don't want to represent myself here as somebody who knows dick about dick.
Speaker 2:Honestly, I actually have just become aware of how ignorant I am, but directionally, when I look at it, I acknowledge some of those risks. The other thing I acknowledge is it's always easier to imagine dystopia than it is utopia. It's always so much easier. It's harder to think about how things could be challenging, but also much better over time. But if you look at human progress, that's actually the only way it goes Loss of version playing in yeah, it's easy easy easy to fall prey to that fear, and we set it in that decision making episode.
Speaker 2:What is fear other than the thought that we can't handle it? But we have handled it every time and we will continue to, and so I'm going to vote in the direction of progress, because I'm aware of the costs of inaction. I think there's some very big costs to inaction. When it comes to this, as Senator Briggs says, we've been living in a world of no. We already know what that looks like. We don't know what a world of yes looks like, and there's only more to gain. We will deal with the risks that I back us in to figure it out, because we have figured it out every other time. So I'll be going yes.
Speaker 1:I love it, nice gents, to share my view of things. I think there's nothing there that I could argue with or challenge ultimately. Yeah, there's always specific nuances that yeah, it's good to debate, but it's hard to ignore or deny a lot of what you guys have said there. And yeah, I know, for me, I just love the idea of patent, interrupt, which is the way things have been done. What would change and challenge? Look like at that front and maybe it's just a curiosity in me as well. That goes you know what could be good.
Speaker 1:I'm quite an optimistic person as well, as you know, and so I definitely look at it and go. Why not? The risk seems too low and, like you said, that fear playing in. Do we think we can handle it? And you know, coming back to that decision architecture again, the decision framework as well, do we think it will take us closer, doesn't need to do the whole job, but does at least move it forward? Probably Is there a risk that we can't reverse. If it does go bad, what's the probability of actually going bad as well? Pretty slim. So it seems pretty obvious, but I'm definitely for the change as well.
Speaker 2:If you've got through this point in the episode and you're like but what about? The thing that I wrote at the end of that article is look if this resonated with you on any level, but you there's holes and gaps in thinking like throw them up. We're just three people who only see it through this perspective and I'm continuing to learn. So if you've got something to teach me that you think is relevant, then please reach out to me and teach me. I'm educating myself.
Speaker 1:We might drop this episode and the article you've written together in the podcast community. So anyone that wants to chime into the conversation, jump into the show notes, follow that through into the community. It'll be sitting there ready to discuss.
Speaker 2:Does that sound good? I'll put the links to all those resources we mentioned actually in the description as well of the episode itself too. Yeah perfect.
Speaker 1:Any other comments you'd like to make?
Speaker 3:We've spoken a fair bit about pie. I'd just like to leave you with a little thought experiment. Nice, you know I love to travel. It's my favorite thing to do, and I've traveled to lots of different countries all over the world and I've had an absolute ball doing it. I feel really lucky to experience what I have. There is something in all of my travels that's really stood out to me and that has been experiencing culture through food everywhere I've been.
Speaker 3:Want to learn about Italian culture, let's go and smash them past our pizza, understand where it comes from and I've done that everywhere, everywhere I've been, and I've been through that. I've been through this whole thing. There's one place that I can't take my overseas visitors to go and have an Australian meal to connect with the oldest living culture easily. It takes a real effort to actually create that I can cook you on. It's fucking great. It's not Wigidi Grubs, it's not at all what you expect. Not a chicken parma.
Speaker 3:It's not a chicken parma, it's not a lamb roast, right, and for me that just talks to the world. It's one little sound bite, but at the end of the day, it's just one example of what we're missing and what is actually possible when we start to listen and I know how powerful it is to be listened to I hope that we can find it in us, as the Australian public, to listen to the ask, to listen to what is actually being asked of us, and find it in our heart to not close the door on that request. That's all it is. It's just a request to be listened to.
Speaker 2:I actually want you to have the last word, mate, but there is one thing I really wish I had have said Never run out of words.
Speaker 1:No, yeah.
Speaker 2:I'm really sorry, because that's a really good way to end, but I just think this is our generation's opportunity to step into and assume leadership. They've got us to here and there's a big vacuum that's being left, and it is generational, and it is partly because of that bias that we talked about. Right, it's the way of the world. When we're older, we'll see ourselves more so as haves, because you accumulate more as over time, and that bias will work against progress because of it. So it's not because we're better, it's because we see it differently. And that is our opportunity to step into leadership. So that's my challenge to us as a generation let's not take our lead from them anymore with this. Let's lead because there is a big hole that's been left and it's time for us to fill it.
Speaker 1:I reckon Brian Jen, thanks for sharing. And one final thing is if you think this will help you have a better conversation with the people around you that you are finding yourself going back and forth with, share it with them. See if it does create a shared level of understanding that creates a better form of dialogue. Ultimately, that's what we want to have, right? And, as you mentioned, if you want to join the conversation and help us feel some gaps jump into the community, throw in your thoughts. We don't want this to be something that's politically in nature. It's just more about seeking understanding and hopefully this conversation has helped you in some way. I know it has helped me. So, thank you, boys. Good stuff, appreciate it.