Albo's question

[nomadpete]

2 hours ago, facthunter said:

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

Pretty sure if you do a survey of prison inmates, they would agree with that.

 

It depends on whether you are being protected by the laws or being prevented from doing what you want to do.

Edited January 28, 2023 by nomadpete

[nomadpete]

4 minutes ago, old man emu said:

Similarly, forcibly stripping away a people's spiritual culture and replacing it with another is wrong.

Whilst there was a period in recent history of this, it is long gone. Nobody in recent times hasforcibly stripped aborigines of their old culture, nor prevented teaching of it. Quite the opposite. I argue that they have cherry picked the most convenient of either culture at the expense ignoring the best of either

4 minutes ago, old man emu said:

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

The aboriginal communities don't see it that way when such high numbers of their youth are in jails.

[facthunter]

I KNOW things are  much worse than they used to be and I  don't think you'll get much dispute with that from both sides. Grog is a factor in many person to person breakdowns. IF they have their OWN show they lose the right to blame whitefellla if they don't use the structure  as it's designed to do.  Possession is a bad way to go. We don't need race separatism which is awfully like apartheid.. We are truly multi racial here and don't need a lever for racism.   I'm for the VOICE. Putting something with or before it's only muddying the waters. It's NOT an either /or situation.  Nev

[nomadpete]

But as Jerry points out this referendum is not being explained in the same way as previous referendums were.

We don't get to see what exact changes are being sought.

 

All we know is that an unknown number of extra bums will be on seatsin parliament, no doubt on our payroll, and they are probably only able to parrot information that is already provided by various existing aboriginal advocacies. 

 

Where is the benefit?

[old man emu]

2 minutes ago, nomadpete said:

All we know is that an unknown number of extra bums will be on seatsin parliament

But do we know that as a fact? I have never heard of the Voice to Parliament being a means of increasing the number of parliamentarians. I thought it was to set up a means by which, when dealing with matters directly pertaining to Aboriginal people and their communities, those directly affected by the decision - those who actually live 'on country' - had at least a 50% say in what eventuated. I don't see it as being a new Public Service empire, but a requirement that local consensus determines the outcome.

 

The most recent application of this concept might be the polling of aboriginal communities to determine if,by a law approved of by the locals, a prohibition on alcohol might apply within the bounds of a community. Very much like Alcohol-free Zones in NSW where alcohol is banned in a defined public access precinct of a suburb, but not outside that precinct.

[octave]

6 minutes ago, nomadpete said:

Where is the benefit?

 

Where is the downside?     As I pointed out NZ  has a system that goes much farther than what is being proposed proposed here.     

 

New Zealand, Canada, Norway, Finland, Greenland etc. all have treaties the indigenous people.

 

Reading through the proposed model I cant see why it should cause any anxiety.  

 

 

 

 

[red750]

52 minutes ago, nomadpete said:

The aboriginal communities don't see it that way when such high numbers of their youth are in jails.

There are high numbers of their youth in jail because there are high numbers of their youth breaking the law, albeit white man's law. 

[old man emu]

Treaty of Waitangi is an agreement, not a treaty as recognised in international law and it has no independent legal status, being legally effective only to the extent it is recognised in various statutes. It was first signed on 6 February 1840 by Captain William Hobson as consul for the British Crown and by Māori chiefs (rangatira) from the North Island of New Zealand.

 

On 21 May 1840, Lieutenant-Governor Hobson proclaimed sovereignty over the whole country, (the North Island by treaty and the South Island and Stewart Island by discovery) and New Zealand was constituted the Colony of New Zealand, separate from New South Wales by a Royal Charter issued on 16 November 1840, with effect from 3 May 1841.

 

If you read and compare the English and Maori language versions of the treaty, glaring differences rapidly become apparent. The Maoris had the kiwi and huia feathers pulled over their eyes.

 

Article the first:

The Chiefs of the Confederation of the United Tribes of New Zealand and the separate and independent Chiefs who have not become members of the Confederation cede to Her Majesty the Queen of England [sic] absolutely and without reservation all the rights and powers of Sovereignty which the said Confederation or Individual Chiefs respectively exercise or possess, or may be supposed to exercise or to possess over their respective Territories as the sole sovereigns thereof.

 

cede: to allow someone else to have or own something, especially unwillingly or because you are forced to do so:

[old man emu]

56 minutes ago, nomadpete said:

The aboriginal communities don't see it that way when such high numbers of their youth are in jails.

 

1 minute ago, red750 said:

There are high numbers of their youth in jail because there are high numbers of their youth breaking the law

Replace "their" with an adjective which describes an ethnicity, and those statements have universal application.

[red750]

Somali?

[spacesailor]

Auckland N Z

At one stage white ( pakeha )  folk couldn't go shopping without the risk of being mugged for their grocery money .

And

The Army were called in to clear the huge dog problem. 

So ,

Not a lot of differance to our problems OR is it their problems. 

As for the police staking out indeviduals , I call it ' Harassment .

Sat in a freinds car to check the red dashboard light & promptly arrested for being in charge of vehicle with A suspended licence!  . ( my grandson 2 more years added to suspension  )

spacesailor

Edited January 28, 2023 by spacesailor
Grammer

[octave]

4 minutes ago, spacesailor said:

At one stage white ( pakeha )  folk couldn't go shopping without the risk of being mugged for their grocery money .

 

When was that?  My son lives in NZ and we visit every year.   Feels reasonably safe to me!

[spacesailor]

60s to 70s

Someone must have done something then !.

spacesailor

[octave]

2 minutes ago, spacesailor said:

60s to 70s

Someone must have done something then !.

spacesailor

Yeah just looking at the crime stats NZ Vs Australia.  NZ seems to be similar or lower than Aus in most categories'.

 

Crime Stats: compare key data on Australia & New Zealand

[nomadpete]

2 hours ago, octave said:

New Zealand, Canada, Norway, Finland, Greenland etc. all have treaties the indigenous people.

I don't think there is a proposal for any treaty. That is a different issue and should be resolved. Separately.

 

3 hours ago, old man emu said:

I have never heard of the Voice to Parliament being a means of increasing the number of parliamentarians.

I didn't suggest the voice would be made by additional parliamentarians. I did suggest that they would probably expect to be on a significant income. If they are permitted to speak (voice), then I expect them to 'park their bum' somewhere in parliament. If not present to add their voice to parliamentary debate, the new voice is no different from the present advocacy groups. As yet, we do not know how many individuals are planned to be this voice, nor what qualifies them to make a voice.

[octave]

4 minutes ago, nomadpete said:

I don't think there is a proposal for any treaty. That is a different issue and should be resolved. Separately.

Correct but my point was more along the lines that Australia seems to be behind other similar countries.  

[onetrack]

This is the problem we have here (news item below) - ongoing, escalating and uncontrollable juvenile Aboriginal crime, in a multitude of outback towns.

 

They are like packs of dogs, and I don't see how any Aboriginal "Voice" is going to address or reverse this problem.

 

Aboriginal problems are always addressed by throwing huge sums of money at the problem, just hoping it will go away.

 

There are no longer any "elders" capable of acquiring the respect from juvenile thugs, that they might have garnered 50 or 60 years ago.

 

These little hoods are the product of the worst of Internet exposure - no-one has control of them, and they simply copy the worst destructive and criminal thug videos and behaviour they can access on the 'net, or on phones.

 

This behaviour is repeated nightly in hundreds of outback towns across Australia, where the Aboriginal population is in high numbers. Before long, I can see white vigilante groups being formed.

 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-01-25/video-halls-creek-rock-attack-and-carjacking/101891176

 

 

[red750]

2 hours ago, nomadpete said:

As yet, we do not know how many individuals are planned to be this voice

I did hear that the number was 25.

[octave]

1 hour ago, onetrack said:

This is the problem we have here (news item below) - ongoing, escalating and uncontrollable juvenile Aboriginal crime, in a multitude of outback towns.

 

 

Instituting a constitutionally mandated indigenous advisory body and finding other ways of tackling these problems are  not mutually exclusive. It is not either one or the other.    Having the "voice" does not mean less  law and order measures or more education or alcohol bans or whatever.   I don't believe it will be a magic bullet that will magically fix everything however what doing what we are doing now is not working.

 

At this stage I will be voting yes but perhaps some one will  put forward a persuasive rational argument.  I am most interested in hearing about the downsides.   

[Jerry_Atrick]

At the risk of seeming too PC, I find it unhelpful to compare these people to things like  packs of dogs, etc. Yes, from the video, I can see the reason for the comparison, but it is unhelpful becuase it wires us to think they are savage, and that the only way to deal with them is the same as a pack of wild dogs.. by the way, which we have not been spectacularly successful at dealing with, either (nor dingoes, nor Emus, it would appear). Lumping them up and throwing them in the middle of the desert is just kicking the can down the road.. sadly, we have been doing this for generations (kicking the can down the road, I mean).

 

I can't think of any group of people who in similar circumstances would not turn up with the same problems. And that, IMHO, even if too PC, is how we should be viewing this - people with intergenerational problems that need solving, which may take a few generations. I get we have to treat the immediate behaviour, which the Voice will not stop, but the long term solution, which sadly, our socio-political environment and structures don't support, requires a very long term investment (not just money, but time, effort, management, follow-up, etc). You're right, just throwing money at it is not going to fix it, which is why a Voice is needed - so that not only is money thrown at Aboriginals, but the policy that accompanies it is made in consultation with people who (hopefully) know how best to use the resources to implement and see through the long term fixes.

2 hours ago, nomadpete said:

I did suggest that they would probably expect to be on a significant income. If they are permitted to speak (voice), then I expect them to 'park their bum' somewhere in parliament. If not present to add their voice to parliamentary debate, the new voice is no different from the present advocacy groups. As yet, we do not know how many individuals are planned to be this voice, nor what qualifies them to make a voice.

This in itself is a non-issue. Just look at all those highly paid public servants who shirk from their responsibility, engage in rorts, and have their noses as or more firmly stuck in the trough. I would say thet there is more probability they (members of the Voice) would be working for the benefit of their community.. Wouldn't it be nice to have a private or LSA pilot at the helm of CASA than a bueracrat?  And, those other advocacy groups - well look at the control NSW Lotteries has, or the tobacco, oil lobbies and the billions of no tax they don't pay. I think the cost of the Voice would pale well into insignificance in the big scheme of things, but, over time, may yield results that are in high multiples of the investment. The difference is they will be consulted on policy - they won't be lobbying so their businesses can make more money with less regulation, etc. But, I think Albo is doing a disservice by not revealing more about what the wording will be, or how a model will work. Even in the republic referendum, a model was proposed if not the actual workding of the constitution.

 

BTW, the reason there is no treaty with the Aboriginals & TIs, is because, at the time, under "international" (read, European) law, there is no need to create a treaty with the conquered as, under terras nullius, there is no conquered.. that is the whole point. NZ was not declared terra nullius, as there were visible permanent dwellings.

 

Is that more than my 5 lines a day?

Edited January 28, 2023 by Jerry_Atrick

[Bruce Tuncks]

Octave, a big downside is that the "voice" will detract from any real effort to help the aborigines. They have shown that their main use of power is to stop whites from doing things that are really none of their business anyway. They have put a ban on rock climbing in the Grampians in Victoria, where I have never seen a black at all. AND there are bridge lengths of precast concrete gradually deteriorating because some " aboriginal" activists ( they looked like whites to me ) said that the new road to Melbourne  was going to make a traditional birthing tree near Ararat be demolished..  ( the tree was way too young for this historical purpose anyway ). The cost was millions for the taxpayer.

I would like to sentence lawbreaking aborigines to live for a time without ANY whitefellers gear....  no clothes, houses, shoes, tools, cars etc etc.

Where has being transported out of town been tried before? I reckon it would give the young criminals time to think without locking them up.

[Bruce Tuncks]

AND, it is not true to say that " any group of people would react similarly". An example being asian immigrants to the US. They started out the poorest of all but now they are well off, much to the dislike of the local blacks. They worked much harder and didn't complain so much.

 

[Bruce Tuncks]

Just maybe, the "voice" could be tasked with coming up with solutions for juvenile crime and women-bashing.

If so, that could be just the thing needed to put some backbone into the government.  I have never seen an example of this, except for the Indulkina old women who sent the fashionable "white blackfellow women" packing when they came to complain about Howard's intervention with the basics card. The locals were sick of the men drinking all the siddown money and leaving the kids hungry . They reckoned it was a good idea, and had scant regard for the " self esteem " argument . 

Personally, I reckoned that it was a good idea which should never have been tried on racial grounds. There are feral whites in SA which need this just as much. Why should I, as a taxpayer, be levied money to exacerbate drinking problems?

[old man emu]

During my first close contact with Americans on  their own soil, I was told that the problem with Afro-Americans was that their actions were for instant gratification. That implies a falling back to basic survival instincts - taking advantage of what is immediately available. Taking and consuming food immediately when one is poorly fed could be an example. I would imagine that there were not many fat field slaves in the South.

 

If you look at Native peoples around the world who don't have a history of Eurasian civilisation - basically any Native peoples from the Southern Hemisphere - you will see this instant self-gratification happening when they become exposed to the products of the Eurasian civilisations.

 

It is that long history of civilisation in the Eurasian world that has ingrained in Mankind the need to ensure survival by carrying out actions to ensure the ability to survive in the seasonal bad times of the year. The carrying out of those actions requires effort today to be rewarded in a few months' time. 

 

We see it in Australia if you compare Aborigines with post-WWII refugees. The European refugees had been poor for centuries, and had to work to keep alive. Then they suffered thirty-odd years of hard times and war-induced famine while still having to struggle to get the basics for Life. Released from those hard times by immigration to Australia, that ethic for hard work brought rewards in a country where food was plentiful and the higher levels in the Hierarchy of Needs were in easy reach,

 

Genetically acquired ethnicity is not the source of the problem for Native peoples from the Southern Hemisphere. It is cause by societally acquired ethnicity.

[Bruce Tuncks]

An example of that, OME, is the difference between Obama and Trump.

Obama was much more civilised in every way and much less impulsive. Actually I can imagine a typical black kid being told " you get off your ass and do some work....  you could be president"

I bet they secretly hated Obama.