Albo's question

[old man emu]

Which side of the argument do voters take in the "Voice to Parliament" debate?

 

An Aboriginal elder, Narungga elder Kerry White, who stood as a One Nation candidate in the last South Australian election, said that the Indigenous Voice to Parliament was the project of urban Aboriginals, who she labelled as 'tick-a-boxers' who had claimed Indigenous ancestry. ‘We, the Aboriginal people from rural and remote Australia do not want it (the Voice),' she was quoted as saying in a recent issue of conservative magazine The Spectator. Ms White was a One Nation candidate in the last South Australian election. Her criticisms echoed those of Indigenous leader Nyunggai Warren Mundine who told Sky News 'The Voice isn't our voice. It was dreamed up by a whole lot of people, Aboriginal people, in Sydney and Melbourne,' he said. 'The elites in academia.' 

 

So here we have Right Wing Aboriginal people attacking a Left Wing proposal on the grounds that the proposal is racist against Aboriginals. And I thought that the "Uluru Statement from the Heart" was universally accepted by Aboriginal and Torres Straight peoples.

 

If I cut out  the words Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander, isn't this a description of the way a Democracy should work?

 

Constitutional recognition through a Voice will give **** people agency to help inform decisions that impact their lives. Current policy-making does not have a systematic process for **** to provide advice, meaning that policy is often made for ****  people rather than with them. Constitutional recognition through a Voice would enable ****  people to give advice to the Federal Parliament about laws and policies that impact them through a simplified policy making process and structural change. This means that **** (people) are included in the law-making process, rather than having bureaucrats and politicians deciding what is best for them. Constitutional recognition through a Voice will deliver real and practical advice to Parliament and the Government on how laws and policies can best improve the lives of **** people. 

 

 

[Bruce Tuncks]

There are ten electorates in Australia where the indigenous vote could swing the result. I reckon they are well represented and don't need a racist "voice", selected on race grounds to amplify the ( mainly white) academics who are backing the whole idea.

Ever wonder why some people who are 90% white and ten percent aborigine consider themselves as " aboriginal" ...   follow the money and you will see why.

[facthunter]

You mean a quick way to get well off is to adopt Aboriginal  Status? Surely you jest. That doesn't work  for many Tribes who have a list of their MOB. and IF you aren't on it too bad what you want to believe.. I haven't seen too many aborigines driving fancy cars and living high on the HOG. (or even wanting to.). Nev

[nomadpete]

I think you haven't looked very hard, Nev

[nomadpete]

I bet you never dared to tick the 'Abo &TI ' box when you visited a hospital?

[Bruce Tuncks]

I was accused of racism because I doubted an aborigine graduated medicine...  she turned out to be a blonde woman who was briefly fostered by a part-aboriginal family. Legally an aborigine huh.

Yes, you just have to look at the numbers to see that there are lots like her.

[Bruce Tuncks]

I sure would like to be able to claim aboriginal heritage. It would save me lots of money right now.

[Bruce Tuncks]

77 years here and 5 generations,  growing up in Alice Springs, you would think I was as Australian as any 30 y/o abo?  Well not according to the government.

[facthunter]

So You'd really like to swap places?  Nev

[old man emu]

Can one of you who has years of experience identifying racial heritage from facial recognition tell me something about the racial heritage of this person?

[Jerry_Atrick]

It's easy to go down the "1/2 caste" rabbit hole but to be honest, I haven't done my research. No doubt the woman above is claiming to be part Aborignal/TI. And, looking at her face, I can see what could have come genetically from Aboriginals, such as the shape of the nose, the shape of the eyes, and the cheeks.. but then, I may be reading too much into it and they could equally be Eastern European features. 

 

1 hour ago, Bruce Tuncks said:

77 years here and 5 generations,  growing up in Alice Springs, you would think I was as Australian as any 30 y/o abo? 

I think this has to be the question. But putting it another way, isn't that "30 y/o abo" just as Australian as the 77 year old, 3rd generation white fella who grew up in Alice? Yet. they are underrepresented in what matters, and, sadly over-represented in society's ills - and until very recently, formally treated as not really Australians (or not as well as other Australians), and still suffer from prejudice. Of course they have social behavioural issues. The intergenerational impact on their oppression should not be under-estimated - a bit like those welfare families that pass on the mantle to the next generation, etc. And this is the norm - yes there are outliers we can all point to..

 

Looking at OME's cutting out of A&TI from the quote, of course, that is how good government should work. And parliament provides the framework for consultation. But Aboriginal representation in parliament is exceedingly low (and the one I know of is a bit of a mongrelette, anyway - dates bikies while she sits of criminal intelligence committees, etc.) So, I get the voice is to ensure that in Aboriginal issues and law making around them, they have a voice, because it seems to have been lacking in the past, and it still seems to be happening (anecdotally, or at least, perceptively). 

 

I still have reservations about a broad concept, which is the voice, being included in the constitution. Not because I am opposed to the Voice.. that in itself seems reasonable that a disaffected segment of the community should be engaged in solving that disaffection, but because how would such a concept be enforced? What does it mean? Is the Tent Parliament enough? Should there be a extra-parliamentary sub-committee that is elected by A&TIs that is consulted? Should a representative of each officially recognised A&TI mob, tribe, moiety, etc,  elect a representative to be consulted, etc.? Can it propose changes and a program, or does it have to wait for the white fella in Parliament to make proposals it is consulted on?

 

The One Nation aboriginal member (itself ironic) quoted as saying The Voice is dreamt up by the "elites" in Sydney and Melbourne, is strange, but she inadvertently raises a good point - that is how is this voice going to be representative of a cross-section of A&TI peoples? In fact, what may work for one mob, moiety, etc., may not work for the other at all due to cultural differences, for one. 

 

For me, the Voice is about getting the model to ensure policy and governance that affect First Nations people is right, because until that is right, systemic problems will continue. However, so far it is light on how it will work, or what the obligations are, other than a broad framework to include First Nations in consultation. The litmus test would have to be, how is the High Court going to adjudicate on a case brought before it that seeks to prove the government acted ultra vires (outside its jurisdiction)? A complete failure to consult would be easy, but what if the minister just sent an email to affected mobs to say, "We're proposing to require all children in your area to attend missionary school. You have 2 days to respond with any feedback?" Is that consulting? Obviously not, but you can see where I am going. 

 

The other risk is the law of unintended consequences. I can see where this will result in less consultation, esp. when the next LNP government is in. But also, as our One Nation defender of First Peoples rights points out, it could mean consulting with a too narrow segment of Aboriginal population, which may result in optimal outcomes for a small segment of the First Nations population, to the detriment of all others. Then you have a situation where not only is the wedge between white fella and First Nations is widened, but there is increasing division amongst First Nations people. What self-respecting LNP government would not want that?

 

I think Albo should do this properly. He should consult with the wider First Nations representatives now to determine the best way to make The Voice work, and get legal eagles in as well to propose a working model that outlines how this will all work and what safeguards there are to ensure proper consultation and that policy/legal developments meet the needs of all First Nations... And also there should be a yard-stick where it can then be folded into general politics.

 

It seems to be already achieving the unintended consequence of driving a wedge. 

 

Edited December 20, 2022 by Jerry_Atrick

[nomadpete]

9 hours ago, Jerry_Atrick said:

For me, the Voice is about getting the model to ensure policy and governance that affect First Nations people is right,

There have been, and still will be, countless groups and government departments providing policy and law direction. They have been unable to change the destructive indigenous culture for the better. Will a special 'voice' really change things? Or will it simply provide another layer to the expensive machinations that profit from the problem?

 

Making new laws are not likely to promote better role models or education for children.

Edited December 20, 2022 by nomadpete

[nomadpete]

9 hours ago, Jerry_Atrick said:

seems reasonable that a disaffected segment of the community should be engaged in solving that disaffection, but because how would such a concept be enforced?

Yes! There is presently a framework for this.

Right now, there is nothing to stop a group of interested (real) indigenous from forming 'The First Nations Party and taking an active part in governance and lawmaking.

 

For instance we have a Shooters Party and a Sex party, etc. They represent 'disaffected segments of our community'.

 

The only reason we don't have a 'Indigenous Party' is the fact that not enough of their people are interested enough to form one. Now we are proposing to force them to have a representative (and their attached support staff).

 

I can't see that helping the ones in real need.

Edited December 20, 2022 by nomadpete

[Jerry_Atrick]

6 minutes ago, nomadpete said:

The only reason we don't have a 'Indigenous Party' is the fact that not enough of their people are interested enough to form one.

Really? How about with a 3.2% population (https://www.abs.gov.au/articles/australia-aboriginal-and-torres-strait-islander-population-summary) scattered across many electorates, they may deem it a futile waste of resources to try? Especially in the rural areas where they were seen as problematic. I wish I could remember the town, but it was on the way to Lighening Ridge, and my then girlfriend (now partner) and I stopped for an overnight before our final destination, There was a distinct segregation in that town of Aboriginals and whiting. I turned up at a motel in a VS commodore, lowered, with plastic caps on the wheels and tinted windows.. The Owner of the motel came out in a very defensive stance. When he saw my pale legs (up until I left Aus, I was actually light olive coloured). he breathed a sign of releif and confessed he thought I "might be an abbo".   So, there may be more to it than simple apathy.

 

12 minutes ago, nomadpete said:

I can't see that helping the ones in real need.

Why not? Isn't the whole purpose of polcy to set a direction, and the legislation is to back it up. If it sets up an education and learning system agreed to by the appropriate representative bodies, and tailored to the different first nations peoples, then why won't it work? It may take more than a generation or two, but it may well work..

[Jerry_Atrick]

48 minutes ago, nomadpete said:

They have been unable to change the destructive indigenous culture for the better. Will a special 'voice' really change things? Or will it simply provide another layer to the expensive machinations that profit from the problem?

While no doubt, the anthbropology of first nations prior to the landing of the white fella was not perfect, I am not sure it is the same as that witnessed since white fella arrived and alcohol/drugs/disease/oppression, etc, which would all combine to affect mental state. That is not to say pre-white fella, it was perfect; but I can't see how 240-odd separate nations lived and thrived, and traded, etc., with their anthropology being as destrcutive as claimed.

 

Will a special voice change things? That is the point of my post. Apart from some lofty aspirational text, there is nothing behind it I have seen as to how it will operate. It is not normal to take extensive legalese to a referendum, but it is normal to state what the referendum is for, and how it will operate. For example, in the 1999 referendum on becoming a republic, the question asked was "whether Australia should become a republic with a President appointed by Parliament following a bi-partisan appointment model which had been approved by a half-elected, half-appointed Constitutional Convention". That gives me sort of enough to work out whether it may or may not work. An aspirational statement that  basically says in relation to first nations matters, we will consult with first nations people, means nothing.

 

I am not advocating voting for it in its current form, unless I have missed something. I am saying it needs more information such as how it would operate, who it would consult with, how it would determine who the representatives are.. even what is the threshold to determine issues affecting Aboriginals, and what is the level of consultation required, and what weight the respondents responses will have, and how conflciting responses will be dealt with.

 

For me, The Voice is nothing but aspiration, albeit noble. But, until these questions are answered, and there is a real risk of unintended consequences arisising. Therefore, at this stage, if I was to vote, it would likely be a "no". I can't vote to have someting in the constitution that I cannot understand how it would work, and therefore, by definition, work out whether it would meet its objectives.

Edited December 20, 2022 by Jerry_Atrick

[facthunter]

It's most likely the group at Uluru was the largest mix of tribes in the  history of aboriginal existence and that's where this call came from. Detractors know that  complete detail is a work in  progress  and attacking detail will be a great way to condemn the referendum to failure. The Action of Littleproud pre emptively deciding against it almost guarantees failure anyhow as few referendums historically are passed in this country.. and it requires Bipartisanship. Certainly a lot of current aboriginal behaviour is disappointing but Porn Grog and white mans $#!t food has a lot to do with that. Up till now the white fella does most of the thinking for our dark brothers and that's hasn't worked  A Bot even appointed himself as minister for Aborigines FFS.

 Stereotyping is not helpful in any  context. Our current situation re these matters is far from perfect. They need more say in what is done for/to them, Yes, i've been treat poorly by some dark skinned Australian 's  but there's plenty  of lighter coloured yobs around too whose company I would enjoy LESS..  Nev

[Jerry_Atrick]

I agree, Nev. Irrespective of a person with little pride (or at least, little to be proud of), I don't need to know of all the detail.. but I need to know how the constitution would be changed to ensure the best chance of sucess of the desired  outcome and ensure it doesn't inadvertently result in an undesirable outcome. This may be too much to chew for a change in the constitution, but, as you rightly point out, Australia's constitution is hard to change. If we are going to change it, we need to be sure it is in the right way.

[facthunter]

Well It's already politicised  pre emptively so that's a bad start. Nev

[nomadpete]

2 hours ago, Jerry_Atrick said:

but I can't see how 240-odd separate nations lived and thrived, and traded, etc., with their anthropology being as destrcutive as claimed

I'm not taking about the historic indigenous culture. That is largely gone from recent generations.

 

The current culture practiced by many (possibly a majority, judging by what I have seen in the past 20+ years), cannot be called 'constructive', so I refer to it as destructive.

Alcoholism and other drug abuse is not forced onto anybody, regardless of skin tint.

Failing to educate one's children or to teach basic personal responsibility for one's actions, is a choice made by parents.

Both of the above are clearly a major problem in some marginalised whities, and many indigenous communities.

Neither can be cured by introducing special legislation or divisive government procedures - laws are oft ignored by disenfranshised people.

 

Any legal precedent that treats demographic groups differently, based on their race, is just like what caused all the aparthied problems.

 

I thought we were aiming for equality regardless of race?

 

PS as regards 240 tribes coexisting, have you not heard about tribal battles (riots) in indigenous towns? And how educators, police and medical staff fear for their lives in many indigenous communities? These are people trying to work with the communities as much as those communities allow, which often isn't much.

Edited December 20, 2022 by nomadpete

[facthunter]

One earlier American president said "ALL men are born EQUAL. I hold this to be self evident".

  In the 200 or so years WE have been here look at the destruction  that has been done. Aquifers Rivers fracking  and heavy metal  tailing dams and agricultural fertilisers Phosphates  from detergents, Insecticides and Herbicides and plastic and landfill.  and imported weeds cane toads  Billions of tons of CO2.  CFC's.etc.   Now THAT"S DESTRUCTIVE Nev

[nomadpete]

Nev said...

"Up till now the white fella does most of the thinking for our dark brothers and that's hasn't worked "

 

You are stereotyping!

 

I point out that most indigenous communities have their own Council usually of elders. The council presents it's views to whitefella 'decision makers'.

So they do have input to what ultimately goes on in whitefella government. The fact that such input is often ignored, simply means that they are no more disadvantaged than I am when I respond to "community consultation" by government/local council/elections.

[nomadpete]

8 minutes ago, facthunter said:

One earlier American president said "ALL men are born EQUAL. I hold this to be self evident".

  In the 200 or so years WE have been here look at the destruction  that has been done. Aquifers Rivers fracking  and heavy metal  tailing dams and agricultural fertilisers Phosphates  from detergents, Insecticides and Herbicides and plastic and landfill.  and imported weeds cane toads  Billions of tons of CO2.  CFC's.etc.   Now THAT"S DESTRUCTIVE Nev

Totally agree Nev. But that is a whole new discussion.

 

Besides, at this point, as consumers our indigenous are as much responsible for all that destruction as I am.

Edited December 21, 2022 by nomadpete

[facthunter]

You used the "destructive" term. I'd say more of a socially dysfunctional situation. Our influences haven't helped. Many common  activities Gambling, easy loans Pressure to buy stuff to keep up with the Jonese's  Poverty spirals are part of other peoples lives also. Don't tell me there's not active discrimination of Blacks, because there IS. . Nev

[onetrack]

Quote

One earlier American president said "ALL men are born EQUAL. I hold this to be self evident".

And right there is the greatest BS statement ever made, and typical of American "Presidential statements", that are always touted as being straight from the mouth of God himself.

 

The truth is, virtually all of these "profound" American sayings are wrong on every level. No-one is born equal. We are all born with inherent and genetic traits, skills and abilities, that can either be nurtured or quashed. I was not born equal to Einstein, and all American Presidents were born with a vast array of differing qualities and abilities. Some of them weren't even capable of leading a booze-up party.

 

The saying should actually be - "All men should be given equal OPPORTUNITY" (to achieve improvement in their lives). Many good opportunities are given to useless people, and they simply waste them.

Many are not capable of taking advantage of opportunities offered to them.

 

Many have no aim to improve themselves, or their position in life. They just just drift aimlessly through life, and let drugs and booze rule their lives. They lack self-discipline, and this lack of self-discipline is nowhere more evident than in the largest majority of Aboriginals.

 

The largest number of Aboriginals lack the ability to discipline their offspring or to make sure they are doing what is required of them. As a result, we end up with Aboriginal families getting paid to send their children to school. No white families get that payment, this is racism in reverse.

 

Recent Native Land Title Settlements now mean that the 3.2% of our population who identify as Indigenous now own around 20% of Australia with freehold Native Title. They can stop whites coming onto "their land". As a white person I have to get permission to enter "Aboriginal Lands". This is outrageous in this day and age, and I could imagine the response if the whites demanded that Aboriginals needed a permit to enter white-owned freehold areas such as our cities.

 

Not only have the Aboriginals received title to vast areas of land in Australia, they have also received billions in payments, via compensation, via special grants and funding, and vast amounts of free items such as vehicles and housing.

The recent Noongar-Boodja Land Trust settlement has seen 3,500 W.A. Aboriginals of the SW of W.A. receive $750M in direct State Govt payments ($63M a year over 12 years), no less than SEVEN new Aboriginal Corporations set up to administer Noongar-Boodja monies, cultural activities, and other Aboriginal "needs".

Naturally, these 7 Aboriginal Corporations are still State-funded (W.A. taxpayer funded), and will be, for decades to come.

 

Per capita, they are now the wealthiest minority group in Australia - yet they still complain they are hard done by, and need lots more. I'm over their constant bleating about their "poor position in society and poor treatment", they are now vastly better off than they were 234 years ago, when their daily life was hard in the extreme, and they eked out a subsistence existence.

I'm also sick of constantly being accosted by Aboriginals begging, they seem to specialise in this convenient "beer-money" arrangement today.

 

Edited December 21, 2022 by onetrack

[old man emu]

The problem as I see it with the referendum has been pointed out earlier: What is the exact wording of the amendment? 

 

Albo is having a go at getting things sorted. You can't knock him for doing a thing that an election win gave the mandate to do. So he's come up with this:

He also proposed that the actioning referendum ask the following question: Do you support an alteration to the Constitution that establishes an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice?

 

It has been pointed out that the relevant Referendum (Machinery Provision) Act requires a more convoluted ballot wording and does not allow Albanese's simple phrasing. The sticking point here is the word "voice". What does it mean as a legal term? Luckily this application of the word is not something that has popped up in the 21st Century.  The meaning "expression of feeling, etc." (in reference to groups of people, is recorded from  the late 14th Century. "Feeling" meaning "what one feels (about something), opinion" is from the mid-15th Century - another old member of the English lexicon. So, if we take up the meaning of the phrase to be "expression of opinion", as opposed to the meaning of "speech", then "voice" does a good job of describing the goal. 

 

However, the Constitution is a set of rules - Thou shall, thou shall not..." So how do we make rules to allow the "expression of feeling". At the Garma Festival of Traditional Cultures in July, Albanese spoke in more detail of the government's plans for a voice to parliament. He proposed to add the following three lines to the Constitution:

1. There shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice.

2. The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice may make representations to Parliament and the Executive Government on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples.

3. The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws with respect to the composition, functions, powers and procedures of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice.

 

I think that the questions are not in logical order - 3 should be 2, but that's my weird mind. Whatever order the lines eventually appear in, the content of the present No 3 is the Devil in the Detail. It's a chicken and egg; horse and cart sort of dilemma. A&TI's can't have a say in the creation of the body called "the Voice" because the functions, powers and procedures haven't been created. Perhaps the correct question shouldn't be a Referendum, but a plebiscite.  In Australia, a plebiscite (also known as an advisory referendum) is used to decide a national question that does not affect the Constitution. It can be used to test whether the government has enough public support to go ahead with a proposed action. Unlike a referendum, the decision reached in a plebiscite does not have any legal force. If there is shown to be strong support for the establishment of a body, then a Commission can be established to sort out its composition, functions, powers and procedures and in the end, take the whole shebang to the people as the finished article. Then we can vote in a referendum, knowing exactly what the amendment will be and how it will work.