Albo's question

[Marty_d]

80% of indigenous people want the Voice. No other referendum gave full detail, that's up to Parliament if a Yes is attained. No it won't solve immediate problems but it may assist with policy in the future.

It's a Yes from me.

[rgmwa]

Hopefully it will, but just having a Voice doesn't mean the politicians will take any notice of it unless they are compelled to in some way.

 

[facthunter]

They had it before in the form of ATSIC but instead of fixing it's problems, Howard abolished it. Nev

[nomadpete]

4 hours ago, Marty_d said:

80% of indigenous people want the Voice....

How can you say this? Please tell me how this number was obtained and by what method. There is no current method to canvas all aboriginal's opinion on anything.  I doubt the accuracy of your allegation.

 

And, even when actual numbers are counted in the actual referendum, we will have no idea what percentage of aboriginals voted in favor of the voice.

[facthunter]

Sample surveys are done all the time. Some are biased by being done only with Mobilephones etc but if you're fair dinkum you will geta fairly good indication.

[nomadpete]

Having been present in a community up the Cape during an election, I can assure you that  even for a federal election, many don't bother, many only come to town for the pissup and football, and most have very fragmented knowledge of the issues at hand. So any attempt at a random survey is doomed to only getting semi city aboriginals to contribute.

[octave]

The whole of the voting public will vote either for or against the proposal.  I cant particularly see much of a downside. The proposal is for and advisory body and the advice is non binding.    New Zealand has seats reserved for Indigenous people which is far in excess of what is proposed here. We are one of the few Commonwealth countries that does not have something like this in place.

 

 

[old man emu]

To get to the nitty-gritty, my understanding is that the Aboriginal people want to cast off the paternalistic approach that governments have adopted. That's a 19th Century (and earlier) "Christian" idea that required Whites to "care for" the ignorant savages. Pot calling the kettle black. I agree with that casting off.

 

I understand that as citizens of this nation, Aboriginal people want to be heard on matters directly related to their problems. I doubt if they, like most other Australian citizens have much interest in taxation law as it applies to allowable deductions, or Australia's Foreign Policy. I think that ability to be heard on matters relevant to them is worth having.

 

But do you write to Federal Parliament about the state of the roads you have to travel upon in you vehicle? Of course not. You approach the appropriate government body. Everybody of voting age get a say in who sits on the local council, where very many local problems are dealt with. There's the Local State Member to speak to about State related matters, and the same for Federal matters. From what goes on in my local area, I reckon a goodly proportion of the Public Service is engaged in dealing with localised issued for all citizens, and a large portion of those Public Servants are working directly with Aboriginal people. 

 

We don't need to alter the Constitution to deal with this lack of sensible policies. Aboriginal mobs have, over 60+ millenia shown that sitting down and having open discussion leads to the solution of problems. Let's ditch this archaic paternalistic approach to non-European societies and identify the commonalities so that we can work on attaining consensus to reduce differences.

[nomadpete]

12 minutes ago, old man emu said:

Aboriginal people want to cast off the paternalistic approach that governments have adopted.

What are these patermalistic things?

 

14 minutes ago, old man emu said:

a large portion of those Public Servants are working directly with Aboriginal people. 

So the avenue to be heard exists now.

14 minutes ago, old man emu said:

lack of sensible policies

What sensible policies? If you have an answer, write to the relevent people and give them a heads up.

 

Eventually, the issues of self destructive culture must be addressed. I don't think that the proposed voice will address this, so it doesn't matter which way the referendum goes. Government policy cannot force people to live responsible lives. Government makes laws. Prohibition does not address alcohol fuelled violence. Jail does not prevent crime. These issues are not specific to aboriginals. But they are over represented because many aboriginal mobs have that culture. 

[old man emu]

In regard to the Referendum question itself, to me it seems like the rainbow cake your mum used to make, or neapolitan ice cream - chocolate, strawberry and vanilla colours swirled together with no order of any kind.

 

Have a look at a referendum vote sheet for the 1967 referendum (Second question)

The referendum information clearly directed a voter to the  relevant clauses in the Constitution and set out what would happen if a person voted "Yes"

 

The sections of the Constitution under scrutiny were:

51. The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to:-
...(xxvi) The people of any race, other than the aboriginal people in any State, for whom it is necessary to make special laws.

127. In reckoning the numbers of the people of the Commonwealth, or of a State or other part of the Commonwealth, aboriginal natives should not be counted.

 

The removal of the words ‘… other than the aboriginal people in any State…' in section 51(xxvi) and the whole of section 127 were considered by many to be representative of the prevailing movement for political change within Indigenous affairs.

 

The proposed 2023 Referendum question will be:  "Do you support an alteration to the Constitution that establishes an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice?"

 

Nothing has been provided to inform voters of the words that would be added to the Constitution if a "Yes" vote was achieved. That in itself makes a mockery of the whole process. If you belong to a club of any sort, your club will have a constitution to guide its governance. Included in that constitution will be a whole chapter or section devoted to how the wording of the existing constitution can be changed. A primary feature is the requirement to tell members what the actual words will be.

 

For example, if the constitution of an aero club originally said, "A person over the age of eighteen years may .... become a member." That could be interpreted that a person cannot be a member during the 364 days following the day of their 18th birthday. You could be a member from the day of your 19th birthday. Clearly that's an error that needs to be corrected.

 

Therefore at a general meeting of the members, they would vote on the motion: "That the word over as it appears in Clause *** be replaced with the word of." Come time to vote, members would fully understand what their vote would mean. 

 

We haven't been given those words, and until we are given them, we can only vote "No", despite our possible support for the concept.

[nomadpete]

Dang!

 

We both broke the five line rule for posting.

[old man emu]

2 minutes ago, nomadpete said:

If you have an answer

Of course I don't have the answer. I'm not privy to their particular problems, although I acknowledge that there are many problems, and not all in Central Australia.

 

4 minutes ago, nomadpete said:

What are these patermalistic things?

 Paternalism is action that limits a person's or group's liberty or autonomy and is intended to promote their own good. Like not letting your kids go out an play on a highway.

 

6 minutes ago, nomadpete said:

But they are over represented because many aboriginal mobs have that culture.

 You can't give up on people simply because a condition exists. 

 

[nomadpete]

1 minute ago, old man emu said:

Paternalism is action that limits a person's or group's liberty or autonomy and is intended to promote their own good.

So the paternalism which some aboriginals wish to be freed, might be laws introduced to protect them from themselves. No more insidious than speed limits or age limits for access to alcohol or cigarettes.

[nomadpete]

4 minutes ago, old man emu said:

You can't give up on people simply because a condition exists.

True. But I think it is paternalistic to set up special extra liberties for certain sections of the populace.

[old man emu]

2 minutes ago, nomadpete said:

Dang! We both broke the five line rule for posting.

 

"He's a rebel and he'll never ever be any good
He's a rebel 'cause he never ever does what he should"

 

PS

Interesting choice of bike. It's not your usual H-D Panhead. Those horizontally opposed cylinders mark it as a H-D XA (Experimental Army). Based on the concept of the German BMW engine, but especially teh shaft-drive that was supposed to reduce the damaging effects on sand on the transmission system of the WLA

 

[old man emu]

1 minute ago, nomadpete said:

True. But I think it is paternalistic to set up special extra liberties for certain sections of the populace.

Do they have Alcohol-Free Zones in the predominantly White communities you have experience of? They did where I lived in Sydney, and I had to police the restrictions.

[pmccarthy]

Paternalism? So we are voting for His Masters Voice?

[nomadpete]

From your professional experience OME, if for instance you found one particular area of town had a dangerously high crime rate, would you call it paternalism to have more frequent police patrols there?

 

Is rounding up lawbreakers actually discrimination just because a lot of them in that area belong to one particular religion or race?

 

Do those people have cause to cry "discrimination"?

 

Yet this is what sometimes happens.

Edited January 27, 2023 by nomadpete

[Marty_d]

17 hours ago, nomadpete said:

How can you say this? Please tell me how this number was obtained and by what method. There is no current method to canvas all aboriginal's opinion on anything.  I doubt the accuracy of your allegation.

 

And, even when actual numbers are counted in the actual referendum, we will have no idea what percentage of aboriginals voted in favor of the voice.

It was stated by a guest on RN Breakfast, a senior member of the team that wrote the Uluru Statement from the heart. The methodology wasn't mentioned. 

[nomadpete]

Sadly our ABC seems to have lost its old policy of reliable fact checking. Has it been buttrosed?

 

Was the Uluru statement from the heart composed solely by the occupants of the aboriginal camp that is hidden from view near Uluru?

Edited January 27, 2023 by nomadpete

[Marty_d]

Still about 1000 times more accurate than Sky News, and infinitely more accurate than Alan Jones!

[nomadpete]

1 minute ago, Marty_d said:

Still about 1000 times more accurate than Sky News, and infinitely more accurate than Alan Jones!

So true, but I notice in recent years the quality of journalism has fallen. Now ABC news is sport, feminism, political correctness, token feelgood fillers, and sometimes some news. In that order.

[facthunter]

They don't like whitefella s telling their MOB how to do things any more that we would like their MOB tell  US how to do things even though in a lot of ways the place would be a better place if they HAD and we had listened. To start with, rivers are not sewers to have any poison dumped in and pumped dry  by speculating greedy people who have no concern for the environment. Just a short term profit, and leave the MESS for someone else to sort out.  Nev

[Bruce Tuncks]

I'm still waiting for an example of how the voice would help any aborigine. How would it help in Alice Springs?

My guess is that there is a whole generation of black kids who have never been subjected to any discipline and have run amok.

I would make it easy to send them to about near the WA border to walk back home. White kids too, it should be non-racist.

About three weeks of walking should give the kids time to think and dry out. Personally, I am doubtful if the supply of grog has much influence anyway.

Maybe having been told by a voice that this is wanted would help. My expectation though is that the voice would just blame the whites for the lawlessness.

[old man emu]

3 hours ago, nomadpete said:

would you call it paternalism to have more frequent police patrols there?

That's not paternalism. That's fire-fighting - stopping the spread of something bad, then trying to snuff it out.

 

15 hours ago, old man emu said:

Paternalism is action that limits a person's or group's liberty or autonomy and is intended to promote their own good.

See what the definition says. Paternalism has the intention of promoting the recipients to a standard considered better by the givers. The problem has been that what the givers considered good, was not necessarily a promotion in the standards of the recipients. The paternalists forced Prohibition on an unwilling public and you know what Prohibition spawned.

 

If what the promoters of the Stolen Generation say is the whole truth - that babes were plucked from their mother's teat with no improvement to the life of the babe or mother, then that type of paternalism was wrong. Similarly, forcibly stripping away a people's spiritual culture and replacing it with another is wrong. Mis-application of health and education services is wrong.

 

3 hours ago, nomadpete said:

Is rounding up lawbreakers actually discrimination just because a lot of them in that area belong to one particular religion or race?

Is it discriminatory to target shoplifting gangs whose members were recruited in Ireland? Is it wrong to target two non-British gangs which are trying to violently take over the area controlled by the other? These actions have nothing to do with paternalism. They are age-old peacekeeping activities.