Further Effects of "The Voice" debate

[nomadpete]

11 minutes ago, spacesailor said:

YES 

90% of Australians Are immigrants!.

BUT,

Sorry to disagree Spacey, but I'd say the majority of Australians were born here, so it follows that the majority of Australians (regardless of their distant ancestoral history) ARE indigenous Australians.

 

But whoever spends the most on an advertising campaign  will any vote.

[nomadpete]

Intended last line to read....

 

....will WIN any vote.

 

[spenaroo]

not who spends more - I give you Clive Palmer as an example.

Who advertises effectively.
Nike for example with Jordan - despite adidas and reebok out spending them.

[red750]

I just know that every man and his dog on this site are going to jump up and down screaming about this....

 

 

 

[old man emu]

"'Immigrant": a person who has come to a different country in order to live there permanently. 

"Emigrant":  a person who leaves on country to settle in another.

 

 

The word refers to the person only. If that person has children who are born in the country moved to, then those children are not immigrants. My wife's family of parents, herself and two sisters were migrants. At the same time they were emigrants. However another sister was born here years later, so she was not a migrant, but indigenous.

[old man emu]

On proving Aboriginality.

 

The local medical centre I attend is under the umbrella of the local Aboriginal Medical service. Today I noticed a poster explaining that persons claiming additional benefits based on their claim to be Aboriginal have to produce documented certification based on the Three Part Test. That certification is made by the Aboriginal community the person claims to belong to. The poster advised that if a person requiring certification was not living in their cultural community, they had to return there to be certified by those who knew the person's connection to that community.

 

On the one hand I applaud this as a means of ridding the system of box-tickers. However, it does have a slight stink of discrimination - "I'm an Aborigine and I've got the bit of paper to prove it." But is it only my Caucasian nose that can pick up the scent?

[pmccarthy]

3 hours ago, spenaroo said:

At what point is an immigrant not an immigrant?

At the point they leave home, they are an emigrant.

[spacesailor]

That is a good medical centre. 

My great grandchildren have and Are in the right place with the right credentials .

To claim a " very mixedup Aboriginal " family. 

 

If only ten % of Australians are " native " , it leaves 90% , " FOREIGN "

BY ANY CALCULATOR. 

if Indian or Nepalese.  Have multiple generations of children , are they Not A part of that same immigrant's family . Or do they call themselves Not the same as their ancestors. 

spacesailor

 

[Marty_d]

7 hours ago, red750 said:

I just know that every man and his dog on this site are going to jump up and down screaming about this....

 

 

 

I'll bite - if you think any sensible person would open a 10 minute video with Alan Jones in the title, your definition of sensible needs work. 

[octave]

15 minutes ago, Marty_d said:

I'll bite - if you think any sensible person would open a 10 minute video with Alan Jones in the title, your definition of sensible needs work. 

Yes, I am not particularly interested in far-right commentary.  

 

 

 

 

Edited October 3, 2023 by octave

[rgmwa]

I thought Jones had retired. I'm surprised this twit is still around. He forgot to mention Trump's criminal credentials. 

[old man emu]

Jones' opinions can be debated, but I find the fact of the numbers of Aboriginal corporations and royalty receipts contradict the images of poverty and neglect that are being pushed at us. Royalties alone must be in the multi-millions of dollars. It wouldn't make much of a dent in that amount to install the very basics of modern civilisation, like sewage and seats so they don't have to sit around on the dirt to have a yarn, in their small settlements. 

 

At the moment I am vacillating between voting YES of NO. However, like an average parent responding to a child's incessant "I wanna. I wanna", I'm inclined to think I'll simply snap and say "No!"

[facthunter]

What you see and hear may not be representative. A "thinking" response will be better than an emotional reaction.  Nev

[nomadpete]

Today, ABC net news gave what appears to be the first reasonable explanation of the intention behind the 'voice'.

For the first time I see mention of the PLANNED 24 seats on the voice advisory board, 16 are to be 2 from each state/territory, and some from various communities.

"Committee" chaired by 2 spokesmen/leaders who are elected  from the state reps. These then have a tenure of 4 years.

 

Note that the selection process for the state reps is not yet planned.

 

They seem to think the 'voice' committee will speak for the existing 110 advisory bodies listed on the government  website.

It will be interesting to see how it evolves.

 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-10-04/how-different-would-the-voice-be-from-other-advisory-bodies/102880116

Edited October 3, 2023 by nomadpete
Added the link

[nomadpete]

2 hours ago, old man emu said:

Royalties alone must be in the multi-millions of dollars.

I spent time around a couple of mines where royalties were paid, along with promised employment for indigenous people.

Never before had I witnessed a charter flight bring in a bunch of cleaners! They breezed around the toilets, spent an hour in the lunchroom devouring the nice mine cuisine, then boarded the plane to go home. Nice work if you can get it, but what about the rest of the mob? I never could find out how much the mining indigenous approval cost the mine. (Millions).

But it looked like it wouldn't pass the pub test.

Not saying all mining companies do this, and I can't blame the indigenous people involved for negotiating for their best interests, either.

But I object to seeing these royalties failing to trickle down to the poor bods in the actual communities. And that unfairness is not caused by whities

[old man emu]

1 hour ago, nomadpete said:

And that unfairness is not caused by whities

Do you mean that people of other colour are racists, too? Bugger! There goes the uniqueness of being Caucasian.

[spenaroo]

Don't know if its racist. more just corrupt and selfish....

we were having a chat about the voice yesterday at work in the office.

all voting differently for different reasons.

one thing we all agreed on is that its a bad look for the country - if a no vote is the majority then internationally it gives the image Australia is a racist country - complete misreading of the room by Albanese

and that if it doesn't succeed its not the proposal that's the issue, its due to a failure of the yes campaign, they did not communicate effectively.
they were far too quick to make it an issue on racism, and been tone deaf - plastering it on the side of Qantas planes (the most hated company in Australia)

A comment was made that this is the closest we have come to US style divisive politics.

with it being for or against, us and them. 
 

Edited October 4, 2023 by spenaroo

[old man emu]

4 hours ago, spenaroo said:

if a no vote is the majority then internationally it gives the image Australia is a racist country

Quite so. And the International media will not give an explanation for the NO vote. My thought is that while the majority of people truly believe that inequalities must be removed from Society, so they would really like to vote YES,  the actions of the likes of Howard, Abbott and Morrison have created a deep-seated distrust of anything politicians want to do. And Dutton's antics don't show any remorse for past actions.

 

Hasn't a lot of time on this forum been taken up with discussing how politicians and their cronies will either make or break whatever the legislation creates of the spirit of The Voice.

 

Based on the success of 120 years of referenda, you can form the opinion that Australians are politically cautious. That's why our political system has been so stable for all that time. Of course we've had storms in tea cups, but nothing approaching sectarian violence. One could say that the Australian approach to politics is caveat emptor.

[octave]

I think there are many countries that are more progressive than us that are also stable.   Many Scandinavian countries are much more progressive than we are and they don't seem to be unstable. 

 

My son moved to NZ 9 years ago.  Despite the fact that he had all the rights and benefits of any other Kiwi (after a couple of years) last year he became a New Zealand citizen.  He did this for several reasons but one of the reasons was that he feels NZ is a lot like Aus but just a little more progressive.  Whilst there are still many social problems with regard to the indigenous peoples there is a least more acknowledgment of its past.  My son says that he feels more comfortable in a country that is at least a little further down the road of reconciliation. 

 

 

25 minutes ago, old man emu said:

One could say that the Australian approach to politics is caveat emptor.

 

 Of course, all change does involve some risk but also reward.  My life would have been safe but boring had I not taken some risks.  In the case of the Voice, I don't think the risk is high and certainly, it is difficult to find examples of countries that have enacted similar systems to the Voice that have suffered overly negative consequences.

 

If as some of the no folks say it will be divisive then it makes me think that perhaps we are less cohesive than Canadians the Fins, Norwegians, Kiwis, etc.  

 

 

[willedoo]

The way I understand it, all the referendum does is make it a constitutional requirement for the Voice to be established and kept no matter which party is in power. All the other details about the Voice will have nothing to do with the constitution as it is sorted out and overseen by parliament by legislation and regulation.

 

I'm assuming the referendum will fail; either that or it will be one of the biggest polling fails in history if it gets up. At this stage, I haven't heard any mention of the government starting the process of establishing the Voice if the referendum fails. There's no reason they can't. A win in the referendum means another future government can't abolish it without another referendum. But a loss doesn't mean the government can't establish the Voice. They can have the Voice without a successful referendum if the government has enough votes in the lower house and senate. Once established, it would be a politically brave future government to abolish it.

[facthunter]

Promoting what you suggest would undermine the current referendum. Putting hard questions off is normal. It's mentally lazy approach. The "IF you don't Know vote NO" is a typical Abbot manoeuvre. They've used those exact words before and then they continue to CONFUSE. Anyone who can't see this is  a TRICK is pretty THICK.  Nev

[spacesailor]

" When is an immigrant Not an immigrant " .

When they " co-habitate " with a " native " & produce a 50% , '  none-immigrant .

Like a ' grandson with 1/4 MAORI  . With " lottery rights to " tin'd mutton-bird " .

 

Simples 

spacesailor

 

[facthunter]

An immigrant is some one living in a Country other than that of their Birth.  Nev

[spacesailor]

Now there is ( it seems ) a " legal loophole " that allows people to vote TWICE or multiple times .

But how do you write  " hai6 " by those Cantonese. 

OR " m4 hai6 " for the ' NO  vote .

How do " illiterate " people write yah or nay . .

This. Is so wrong in so many ways .

Just a polling stuff up! , to devide the electorate. SO what else are we voting for on that same day ? ..

spacesailor

[octave]

1 minute ago, spacesailor said:

Now there is ( it seems ) a " legal loophole " that allows people to vote TWICE or multiple times .

 

What evidence do you have?