Albo's question

[Yenn]

Albo has come out with the question for his referendum. "Do you support an alteration to the constitution that establishes an Aboriginal and Torres straits Islander voice?"

Now what sort of a question is that. Does he really think that there is enough info there to get people to answer that question? Maybe he thinks the average Aussie will say yes, just because so many voices have been shouting about it. I wonder if he really wants it to be a yes vote, but if so it will not get my vote without a lot more explanation.

What is really being proposed? How would it work? and if as Albo also suggested the government could say who would comprise that voice, would it really be a voice of the proposed people.

Remember the referendum on us becoming a republic. That failed because there was no definition of what sort of republic and even then we did not want an American style republic.

This one looks as if it is heading the same way.

[Jerry_Atrick]

https://fromtheheart.com.au/what-is-a-voice-to-parliament/

[red750]

How about a voice to parliament for the recreational and general aviation community? Then we may get some common sense regulations and control of airfields.

[willedoo]

50 minutes ago, Yenn said:

Remember the referendum on us becoming a republic. That failed because there was no definition of what sort of republic and even then we did not want an American style republic.

Yenn, I'd disagree there. The model was fairly clear, even down to the government mailing out a copy of all the proposed constitutional changes. They were written as they would be included in a new constitution as a draft, so I was able to compare it to the original, of which I have a copy. It was that comparison that led me to voting no. The reason being that Howard was trying to give the PM powers now held by the GG, which they said they wouldn't.

 

The power of the PM to sack the President was the worst one in my opinion. Under the proposal, the PM could sack the President without giving reason. After a certain amount of time, Parliament could reinstate the President if no justifiable grounds for his dismissal were found. But the kicker was that the PM could veto any decision by Parliament to reinstate the President and he would remain sacked regardless. I don't think many of the public read the proposed draft constitution from cover to cover. There was some bad stuff in it. Little Johnny was having a bob each way. He didn't want one, but if it did happen, he wanted more power. He was a slippery little worm.

 

I was one of the republicans who voted no based on the amount of detail we were given, rather than any lack of it.

[facthunter]

Howard cunningly sabotaged IT. H R Nicholls society and Flint would never want a republic. T A Bot always said "if you don't understand it DON'T vote for it" and then confused everything..   Nev

[pmccarthy]

This Voice thing has no hope of getting up based on the information given out so far. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

[Jerry_Atrick]

I agree with the principle of the Voice, but I can't say I would vote for such a simple question because it leaves so much in between without the scrutiny of the people - which is the purpose of a referendum. Maybe a simple yes/no question where the outcome of either was certain - but not such a vague notion. e.g. Even though the Voice is advisory, once given constitutional acknoweldgement and authority, it would make going against its advice far more difficult. This is not to say that the Voice' advice would be intentionally bad, but where the government advice or remainder of Australian's views are in conflict, it could be more divisive than it is now. And we know with, sadly larger sections of the press and the direction they take based on their owner's whims, how that could end up.

 

Maybe the ALP's polling is a majority will vote for a vague notion to benefit indigenous people without the details - in which case, well, go for it.

 

There is no constitutional requirement to enact a Voice. It can be done through legilsation and not be unconstitutional. Many elected organisations advise government. So maybe Albo should enact the Voice and let it settle for a couple of years - then go to a referendum to vote that incarnation (with the ability to move with society) to protect it from future conservative governments dismantling it.

 

 

[Bruce Tuncks]

I always wondered about Turnbull. The pro-republic ads were terrible, while the pro-monarchy ones were cunning. Was Turnbull a fool or did he deliberately lose?

I never really studied the matter like willedoo did. He has made me feel better at being on the losing side.

[Marty_d]

1 hour ago, pmccarthy said:

This Voice thing has no hope of getting up based on the information given out so far. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

I disagree.  I think the zeitgeist is changing.  I'd vote "yes" if they put that question up now, and I think most of the people I know would too.

[willedoo]

25 minutes ago, Marty_d said:

I disagree.  I think the zeitgeist is changing.  I'd vote "yes" if they put that question up now, and I think most of the people I know would too.

I would also; I think it's something worth taking a punt on. I can't see any catastrophic outcome from it.

[willedoo]

Things have dragged on. It's a long time since Bob promised them a treaty. They're still waiting.

[willedoo]

I don't see what all the fuss is about here in Australia. NZ has had a treaty for yonks, and they have many Maori senior members in government, even ministers with traditional face tattoos. The sky hasn't fallen in there yet.

 

 We could do well to push along black/white reconciliation in this country. If that was sorted out, the Aboriginals could get a chance to have a go at another important issue - reconciliation between themselves.

[onetrack]

I don't understand how this arrangement of an "Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander voice" is going to work. We're talking about original Australian tribes scattered over a vast continent, and all of those tribes have different "voices" as to their complaints and requirements. Some of this group want a completely separate Aboriginal Nation, which is a joke.

 

Large numbers of these tribes feel no affinity for tribes thousands of kilometres away, and have totally different aspirations and intent, to those tribes on the other end of the continent.

I think we're all entitled to know how this "deal" will operate, what it will deliver by way of settling Aboriginal and Islander complaints and demands, and what the final outcome is envisaged to be.

The country is slowly being divided up into self-interest groups, and I believe that is something the exact opposite of what the Australian Constitution was designed to do.

[rgmwa]

I don’t have a problem with the idea of a Voice to Parliament, but I can’t see how it will achieve anything useful if Parliament only has to listen but not necessarily take any notice of what is said.

[facthunter]

Mainly, so far, it's what whiteys think is good for them that gets handed out. THAT doesn't work but there's a lot of problems to address. IF they have more say in how it's done could it be much worse?. Nev

[spacesailor]

On the Republican vote,

I didn,t see any choice of returning to what we have Now.

IF, like England,s  Republic, it is.

NO BLOOODI GOOD

spacesailor

[facthunter]

How is England a Republic?. It's very much a Monarchy and does the Pomp and Ceremony like no other. Nev

[old man emu]

9 hours ago, Yenn said:

"Do you support an alteration to the constitution that establishes an Aboriginal and Torres straits Islander voice?"

Like a lot of things, the Devil is in the detail. We should analyse the wording of the Referendum question closely.

 

"Alter the Constitution": Actually, is the idea to amend the Constitution ,

AMEND:

1. to improve; change for the better

2. to remove faults from; correct

3. to alter or revise (legislation, a constitution, etc) by formal procedure

 

ALTER:  to make or become different in some respect; change

 

ESTABLISH: to start something that will last for a long time

 

VOICE: an expression of opinion, or the right to express an opinion:

 

I think that the crux of the matter lies in the way an advisory body is "established". It has been said that the proposed advisory body could be set up by legislation. But with all the best will in the world, that would not ensure permanency. As an example, look how easily it will be for the Labor government to diminish or remove the Australian Building and Construction Commission. A majority in the Lower House and support in the Upper House and no more ABCC. In like manner, an A&TSI advisory body could be abolished. If the  A&TSI advisory body was established by virtue of an amendment to the Constitution, then it would be much harder to abolish.

 

But the question is too simplistic. I think that it is reasonable to have a body that engages with a section of the community before a government takes action that affects that section directly.  But who would that advisory body be  be composed of? It's about time that Europeans recognised that "politically" the Indigenous people are are varied in their sense of local identity as are the rest of the populations of the world. Do you identify with your suburb or city before you identify as Australian?  I do. I'm from the Shire and consider myself different from someone from the  North Shore, Manly-Warringah or Bankstown. But I'm a Sydneysider, so I'm better than you blokes who exist on the Yarra.  Should the people of the Shire have their own advisory body to give voice to their needs?

 

And there is no united voice of the A&TSI. How can there be with 250 language groups containing very many clan groups. What do the Wajuk of Perth care about the Kunja of Cunnamulla?

[Jerry_Atrick]

I think there may be a little more that unite Aboriginals than not, despite the clans they come from.

 

New Zealand does a lot poltically better than their Western counterparts.. integration with Maoris is one of them, but lets not forget, the British recognised the Maoris' settlement of NZ Therefore, the British had to treat it as a conquest, and had to enter into a treaty. This is in contrast to Aboriginals who relied on natural borders and were not obvious with their settlement, which allowed the British in disingenously declare terra nullius and therefore were not obliged to enter into a treaty.

 

I am in absolute agreement that Aboriginals should be given a voice on matters that affect them, and in the operation of the country as a whole. What I am not for is agreeing to some vague notion, and leaving it up to pollies to work out the rest when it impacts the constitution. My view is legislate for it; let it settle for a couple of  years and take a model that works and doesn't intorduce any unknown consequences into the consitution. That will address the potential for future governements to willy-nilly water it down. 

 

I know it's only an advisory group, but once it has the power of law, and then the constitution, going against the advice can be a politically difficult thing to do. And if it is noit done right, it can be moer divisive than what is currently in place.

[nomadpete]

10 hours ago, facthunter said:

they have more say in how it's done could it be much worse?. Nev

They already have their own influencers advising parliament, and so far, it has worked just like whitey's lobby groups. There is no way to force integrity. The influencers are self serving and the needy are ignored.

How can this new voice be forced to really represent the majority in a benevolent manner?

[nomadpete]

Who will elect the voice-person? Will the AEC run separate elections for them? How will they be held accountable?

[old man emu]

Whatever way this matter of special Indigenous Peoples' involvement in government goes, we should take special heed of the problems arising from the New Zealander's' Treaty of Waitangi. 

 

The problems arose, not from a conflict between the wishes of the Māori people and the desires of the British government, but from the choice of what words to use to describe concepts that did not exist in Māori society. Like all written versions of agreements between peoples who speak different languages, there are two allegedly identical documents, one in English and one in Māori. The English and Māori texts differ. As some words in the English treaty did not translate directly into the written Māori language of the time, the Māori text is not a literal translation of the English text.

 

The differences between the two texts have made it difficult to interpret the treaty. The most critical difference between the texts revolves around the interpretation of three Māori words: kāwanatanga (governorship), which is ceded to the Queen in the first article; rangatiratanga (chieftainship) not mana (leadership), which is retained by the chiefs in the second; and taonga (property or valued possessions), which the chiefs are guaranteed ownership and control of, also in the second article. Few Māori involved with the treaty negotiations understood the concepts of sovereignty or "governorship", as they were used by 19th-century Europeans, and ceding mana or sovereignty in a treaty was legally and culturally incomprehensible in Māori terms.

 

We have lot of fun in these forums playing with the multiple meanings of words that sound or a spelled the same. We understand that we are often making puns or joking. But how often do these puns and jokes go over the heads of not only those who only speak English, but also those for whom English is not their primary language.

 

The adage, "Read the fine print" is a warning against being tricked in an agreement. Failure to do so has kept many a legal eagle in horse hair wigs and silk gowns. Before we follow our wishes to achieve social equality with Indigenous Peoples, and vote "YES", we must study the wording of the proposed amendment to ensure that it says what we want it to say.

 

When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.”
“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master – – that’s all.”

[facthunter]

An attempt has to be made. The current situation is failing. Nobody I know of involved thinks it's going to be easy. Nev

[spacesailor]

facthunter

England WAS a Republic! !.

AND had it,s only Revolution, to put the monarchy back , & William Pitt became the first Prime minister .

Unlike France, that is still a republic & has numerous revolutions.

Fiji was the last country to have a revolution , to put their Chieftains back into power.

spacesailor

 

[willedoo]

16 hours ago, facthunter said:

Mainly, so far, it's what whiteys think is good for them that gets handed out. THAT doesn't work but there's a lot of problems to address. IF they have more say in how it's done could it be much worse?. Nev

I saw a good example of that first hand in the early 80's. We were moving to a job in the Great Sandy and had arranged to stay the night at Balgo Hills. In those days it was still a church run mission, before the community had taken it over. I went for a walk up onto an escarpment to have a look at the view, where it overlooked a large natural pound down below. It was a site with a good aspect and views, and there were several abandoned brick veneer houses there. They didn't look very old, but were smashed up with broken windows, holes in the gyprock walls, and the roof tiles had holes punched in them by throwing rocks.

 

I asked one of the white staff about the houses, and was told that the government people had come up, decided the people should have nice houses instead of sleeping in old car bodies and gunyas down by the creek, and selected the site because of the nice views. So away they went and the construction crews arrived from Perth and built the houses. The people were then moved up into the houses, but they only stayed a couple of days before the whole lot moved back down to their old camp by the creek. It turned out that they weren't consulted about the housing plan and the government had built the houses on taboo devil devil land. After they'd moved out, the kids used to go up there and vandalise the houses for something to do.

 

I'd be hard pressed to estimate the money involved, but it would have been many millions. If you could build a brick home in Perth at the time for $100,000, it would easily cost five times that to build one at Balgo. I can remember in those days, many people used to complain about the amount of money thrown at the aboriginals, but they were just the bottom rung of the ladder of government waste and corruption. A lot of white people made a lot of money from the system and whatever amount of cash the aboriginals had every fortnight ended up in white hands as well. I've heard stories of shopkeepers taking a $50 note for a packet of chips and a can of coke and giving them back $2 in change. People used to forget that the money was only temporarily in the hands of the aboriginals short term. The reality is that a big portion of it ended up in Alan Bond's pocket via Swan Breweries.

 

I don't know if they've cleaned the industry up or not, but a lot of dodgy things went on in the past with contracts to build housing and infrastructure. Out of the total Aboriginal spend by government, a lot was skimmed off or simply just wasted by dumb bureaucratic decisions.