Further Effects of "The Voice" debate

[Jerry_Atrick]

Which is the same as Dutton and his No mob... Trumpism is the blatancy of it, more than lying itself.. and the followers swallowing the lies to meet their agenda or blame for their woes or just because they are "ist"  - of whicever "ist" it is..

 

1 hour ago, Columbo said:

Glad common sense has prevailed. 

Care to elaborate?

 

3 hours ago, facthunter said:

I really doubt Albanese's  position as leader  is likely to be challenged from within the Party, Jerry. Your comment on it is the first I've heard mention of it. That line  that his tenure is connected to the result,has constantly been run by SKY  and Dutton but even Chris Kenny reckon's its BS.  Nev

I did not say he will be challenged, but there no doubt will be a de-brief of the referendum and what went wrong. If his leadership is not called into question, then the ALP will be doing itself a disservice - if nothing more than to learn from it. Remember, the ALP did not really win the last federal election; with one of the most on-the-nose governments in living memory, they walked away with a one-seat majority, which is really poor as they should have romped it home. And, yes, they did win a by-election as a sitting government - the first time in ages, if not, forever, but that is because the Libs are still well and truly on the nose.

 

In politics, as with much in life, you load your ammo, get your ducks in line, and then fire. Albo, as the leader certainly didn't get his ducks in line and it is hard to say he even loaded the ammo properly before he fired the gun. In fact he scambled from the time he announced the referndum - first having to work out the wording, then getting the solicitor general's opinion, all the while his political opponents and the press were given a golden opportunity to pillory him and the Voice - which they did.. Ammo not loaded properly.

 

The he courted Dutton for bi-partisan approval - like that was going to be tough anyway, but now the pilitical ducks had scattered and were quacking everywhere. To pull it off woudl have been a miracle.

 

So, if they do not question his leadership and make changes to the style/approach/tactics,  they will be doing themselves a big disservice. And if the Libs can get their act even slightly together, it may be choppy waters for them.

 

And if nothing, politics is a brutal and bloody sport. There will no doubt be someone in there harbouring aims to be the next PM... This will be one in their bank to load the ammo with and get ducks in line before they pull the trigger. And, at time of writing, with about 75% of the count, it is 60/40 in favour of No. If that persists, that is a schlacking.

 

Edited October 14, 2023 by Jerry_Atrick

[rgmwa]

I think the biggest reason it failed was because the aboriginal population itself was so clearly and loudly divided on the issue. Had they all been for it there's a good chance it would have got across the line despite Dutton's scare campaign.  But even if it had succeeded, I doubt that much would have changed because half the aboriginal population would have ignored it as a waste of time and the other half would be squabbling over who was going to represent them. Even having a Voice in the Constitution would not be a guarantee of permanent representation, because the government of the day could just choose to reduce their funding to make them ineffective. I was on the `yes' side on the basis that it was worth a try, but now the onus is on `no' side to figure where they go from here to solve all the problems. If they can come up with a better solution then maybe something will change.  

[pmccarthy]

Headline in the Age this morning: Devastating verdict: Australia tells First Nations people ‘you are not special'.

 

they nailed it, exactly! No Australian is special. We all have the same responsibilities and must obey the same laws, and we all have access to the same political processes.

[Jerry_Atrick]

As a headline, I agree.. The article is for subscribers only,  so I can't read it. 

 

But the voice was not about giving ATSIs special status; it was about levelling up 

[nomadpete]

I feel  that people are trying to blame the referendum outcome on patisan following, (Dutton said...) or are poorly educated. Or fall for media manipulation. The implication being that anybody who voted 'no' is weak willed, bigoted and just plain dumb.

 

I think that is insulting.

 

There are many who do see through the manipulation and voted no for their own reasons.

 

For instance I see comment that western Sydney mainly voted 'no' and it is mostly lower educated and Labor.

 

Does it occur to anybody, that that area is mostly populated my multicultural recently migrated people? Might that demographic influence the attitude of a large sector?

My point being that the vote DOES give government a reading of the people's will and each voter has their own reasons for their vote.

 

Divided? Yes. But accept that almost half of Australians  do want a indigenous voice TO BE HEARD in our government.

 

BTW

I  am respecting 'no' voters in spite of personally voting 'yes'

[old man emu]

If the YES proponents accept that they lost the battle, then they should do what any good General has done in the past - pull back; regroup and implement another strategy.

 

The NO side put forward that we already have lots of government bodies which do not seem to be terribly disjointed and isolated in what they are doing. Along with so many other Federal Government bodies, those dealing with Aborigines need a good shaking up, followed by consolidation and the development of a set of reasonably attainable goals. That administrative action does not need a Constitutional change, or new legislation. It simply needs a government willing to put the broom through a complacent bureaucracy.

 

I think that the 1999 Preamble question would have been a better way to obtain the recognition that was being sought:

 

 We the Australian people commit ourselves to this Constitution:

proud that our national unity has been forged by Australians from many ancestries;

never forgetting the sacrifices of all who defended our country and our liberty in time of war;

upholding freedom, tolerance, individual dignity and the rule of law;

honouring Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders, the nation's first people, for their deep kinship with their lands and for their ancient and continuing cultures which enrich the life of our country;

recognising the nation-building contribution of generations of immigrants;

mindful of our responsibility to protect our unique natural environment;

supportive of achievement as well as equality of opportunity for all;

and valuing independence as dearly as the national spirit which binds us together in both adversity and success.

 

I left this part of the Preamble off because it relates to the question of becoming a republic, which was what was rejected back in 1999.

With hope in God, the Commonwealth of Australia is constituted as a democracy with a federal system of government to serve the common good.

[octave]

17 minutes ago, nomadpete said:

I feel  that people are trying to blame the referendum outcome on patisan following, (Dutton said...) or are poorly educated. Or fall for media manipulation. The implication being that anybody who voted 'no' is weak willed, bigoted and just plain dumb.

 

 

To me it is more palatable to believe that people fell for fear and misinformation than that they were unprepared to give the smallest of changes that would not have impacted their own lives at all.

Some of the no campaigners such as Mundine and Price advocated no because they thought it did not go far enough. Mundine in an interview said that the struggle for a treaty would start after a no vote. I am betting that these stars of the no vote will be dropped pretty quickly by the conservatives.

 

We have voted for the status quo. We were to afraid to adopt system like pretty much every other country in a similar position. I fear we deserve our international reputation.

 

[old man emu]

22 minutes ago, nomadpete said:

Does it occur to anybody, that that area is mostly populated my multicultural recently migrated people?

I raised that point earlier in this discussion. Those people come with their own cultural history baggage.

 

[nomadpete]

2 minutes ago, octave said:

people fell for fear and misinformation

Octave, both sides made this mistake, in their own ways. And that, in my opinion, was what started the polarisation.

[facthunter]

The Western Sydney peop0le were told they would lose their houses and the UN would take over the country. IF they voted YES..   Nev

[willedoo]

3 hours ago, octave said:

Some of the no campaigners such as Mundine and Price advocated no because they thought it did not go far enough.

octave, I'm just wondering whether you're getting Jacinta Price and Lydia Thorpe mixed up. Lydia Thorpe was against the voice because she thought it did not go far enough, and she is pushing for the treaty option. Jacinta Price's main public reason for opposing it is because she thought it would divide the nation along the lines of race. She's a born and bred conservative Liberal and most of her views on Aboriginal policy are about law and order and ending welfare dependency. She rejects any white privilege narrative and is highly critical of any left wing views on Aboriginal policy. Jacinta Price is the polar opposite of Lydia Thorpe. Price is conservative with a capital C.

[willedoo]

It looks like the national average was 60/40 on the state count. On today's AEC figures, the state no vote from highest to lowest is:  Qld. 68.61%,  SA 64.45%,   WA 63.43%,   TAS 59.47%,   NSW 59.37%,   VIC 54.79%. 

[facthunter]

The results by electorate tell an interesting story.  Teal all YES The NO is also a pre-emptory shot against the move to a Republic. This was all planned . It's not by accident.  How significant and honest was the Murdoch media?  Nev

[red750]

How much of an improvement in the lot of aboriginal comunities and kids could have been achieved with the money wasted on this farce of a referendum?

[old man emu]

1 hour ago, red750 said:

How much of an improvement in the lot of aboriginal comunities and kids could have been achieved with the money wasted on this farce of a referendum?

A lot if it was spent on redundancy payments to the Ministers for Aboriginal Affairs and Public Service policy makers who did SFA over the years. 

 

It's time to put the cleaners through the top echelons of the Public Service. I'm afraid Sir Humphrey has to go!

[facthunter]

False and misinformation was just a sabotage stunt and totally political. There's a few money trails in there also. .  Nev

[onetrack]

This is from a poster on another forum (from Wednesday 11/10)....

 

"So I had a pretty positive experience with the referendum today...
Up bright and early for a flight chartered by the AEC to pickup early ballots from a few spots in WA.
Near as makes no difference 7hrs flight time, over a series of relatively short hops.
Our charter ended up collecting not even 20 boxes of ballots. We landed with more ballast on board (that we took off with) than we collected ballots (by weight)
That was just one plane out of a few we had flying, and will have flying between now and Sunday.

Money well spent, and possibly my best day at work ever 😄
Can't wait to see how much dino-juice we burned in the process"

And that is just in W.A. Imagine how much money was blown on AEC aircraft charter, overall? 

This from a political party that espouses Green credentials, tries to criminalise private aircraft use as obscenely polluting, and who has signed off on a global accord to minimalise emissions?

 

 

Edited October 15, 2023 by onetrack

[facthunter]

...... From a Poster on another forum. Might  as well be your Barber or  Taxi driver. Any cost on using a democratic process is just part of the deal. How much did BIG Clive spend challenging the WA Gov't? Switzerland has Referendums every second month and It doesn't make news at all..  Nev

[octave]

Democracy is not free. We could save an awful lot of money by never having the opportunity to vote.

 

Edited October 15, 2023 by octave

[facthunter]

People die all over the world trying to get the right to a free vote and fair elections.  Nev

[onetrack]

Well, I'm afraid I voted with the well over 60% of people who had serious doubts about the viability and effectiveness of this proposed Voice.

 

1. The Indigenes harp on constantly about the dreadful effects of "colonisation" on their peoples. They seem to forget that colonisation has improved their lifestyles, wealth, travel ability, gave them medicinal gains - and provided them with vast sums of money, as well as land.

Indigenes are now the largest freehold landowners in Australia. The make up a reported 3.8% of the overall population (a reported 23% increase since 2016 apparently, so it looks like colonisation hasn't seriously affected their breeding ability).

To the contrary, as it appears it took the Indigenes 60,000 years to get from maybe a few dozen original inhabitants to about a few hundred thousand inhabitants when the Europeans arrived (all population figures are wild guesses as to how many Indigenes were here in 1788). This 3.8% of the population own or control 17% of Australias land. Not a bad deal for people who "lost".

 

2. The umpteen hundred million spent on an unnecessary, unwanted, and poorly-discussed referendum vote would have been far better poured into alcohol-reduction damage programmes amongst Indigenes - poured into sexual-abuse and drug-use reduction programmes amongst Indigenes - poured into programmes designed to improve literacy and numeracy amongst Indigenes - poured into making more Indigenes useful as workers and employees.

 

3. I, like many others are sick of the constant demands from Indigenous activists. The list of demands is constant and never-ending. At what point will they be satisfied? Only when the whites are driven from Australia, it seems. Every day there's a new demand - for reparations, for treaties, for compensation, for land, for apologies, for Indigenous independent Statehood. There's no end to it.

This is a people who are on the receiving end of the greatest level of social welfare largesse the nation has ever seen. They get vast amounts of royalties, compensation, and other income - yet they're still on the receiving end of specifically-tailored welfare programmes.

Their cars break down and they get lost in the bush, and a couple of Indigenous die - so the Communities are immediately in line for new Toyota Landcruisers on a regular basis, all provided by Govt largesse - because we can't have the occasional Indigenous person dying in the bush, because their old car broke down, can we? 

 

I personally believe that nothing will change until the Indigenes start taking more personal responsibility for their failings. The current system of them getting newly-rebuilt houses and infrastructure repairs (at massive cost to taxpayers), around about every 4 years - with no responsibility on the part of the Indigenes for destroying the houses or infrastructure, has to change.

 

An associate works out of Broome as a contractor. At one of the communities, while they were working, young Indigenes stole their $100,000 Landcruiser work ute and all the tools in it, and destroyed it. They burnt it. So the associate left the community and told them he wasn't going back. The community pleaded with them to come back, they needed him and his workers to fix things. So the associate agreed to go back on a new contract - with $150,000 added to pay for the destroyed Landcruiser and tools. The community paid it, after all, it's only Govt money, isn't it?

 

Everyone needs to read the article below to understand how dysfunctional the Indigenous welfare/grant/support system is. No Voice in the Constitution would ever fix this dysfunctional mess, it would only lead to a 1000 more Canberra "fat cats" in the bureaucracy - and this is the reason why Canberrans were voting overwhelmingly in favour of the Voice.

 

https://www.griffithreview.com/articles/kartiya-are-like-toyotas/

 

Edited October 15, 2023 by onetrack

[facthunter]

Canberra is regarded as the Most progressive place in Australia and the place is all leased so the "lose your house' didn't cut it. The ",IF you don't understand it DON'T Vote for it is a bit of a trite argument when you are doing your best to confuse things. I don't know how screaming CASH can keep a straight face when saying it. Some of the indigenous antics  and faintly disguised HATE aren't that flash but there's plenty of white trash around too. The push to sell grog is from whites. Whinging from Blacks when roads and bridges get damaged. amuses me and Black only Pubs in Places like Tennant Creek.  I used to fly an F27 in there to pick up gold bars amongst other things in 1969. It's a DUMP I wouldn't even stay a night now, IF it was free.

 . Dutton now wants to have a Royal Commission into family violence. Remember when Mal Brough brought the ARMY in? T Abbot was Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. How well was That money targeted when HE was involved and how genuine was his concern for their welfare? . Nev

[spacesailor]

As I said " it should Not have happened " .

And ' we are still " one nation , one mob , but are many ' .

spacesailor

[Jerry_Atrick]

Wanring.. Multiquote post coming...

 

13 hours ago, nomadpete said:

I feel  that people are trying to blame the referendum outcome on patisan following, (Dutton said...) or are poorly educated. Or fall for media manipulation. The implication being that anybody who voted 'no' is weak willed, bigoted and just plain dumb.

 

I think that is insulting.

I agree, but (and there's always a but), I also agree with Octave. In politics, you know if you sling enough mud or instill enough fear, a lot of people will buy it.. not necessarily for any other reason than confusion. I don't blame Dutton - he saw a political opportunity laid bare by Albo and he grasped it. While the Uluru Statement from the Heart is not Albos, the referendum was, and he created the golden opportunity for what ABC called the conservative No campaign to get the upper hand; and he seemed genuinely frustrated and not understanding of why Thorpe and Mundine went No. In fact, I was originally leaning to No myself.

 

But I do agree with Octave - there was enough fear that was being spread that would have at least sowed enough doubt (inclding a text on voting day saying something along the lines of don't risk a fine for not voting No at the election, though it was cleverly worded so as not to technically link voting Yes with receiving a fine)

 

13 hours ago, octave said:

Some of the no campaigners such as Mundine and Price advocated no because they thought it did not go far enough. Mundine in an interview said that the struggle for a treaty would start after a no vote. I am betting that these stars of the no vote will be dropped pretty quickly by the conservatives.

The "progressive" no campaigners are likely to be dropped, but the Voice was to be a first step to getting to a treaty. Lydia Thorpe on ABC stated to another ATSI woman than no ATSI can speak on behalf oaf any mob but their own. I get that, but with representation that garnered the consensus of all mobs to a treat, they mountain to climb to get there would be a lot easier. I think they have taken a souble barrel shotgund and blasted themselved in the foot on that logic as a rabble is far harder to get consensus with.

 

7 hours ago, red750 said:

How much of an improvement in the lot of aboriginal comunities and kids could have been achieved with the money wasted on this farce of a referendum?

A good question - we will never know. But democracy, although probably more expensive and an autocracy, usually is cheaper in the long run.

 

5 hours ago, facthunter said:

False and misinformation was just a sabotage stunt and totally political. There's a few money trails in there also. .  Nev

Indeed.. Apart from Clive Palmer, they tried to remain quiet about their donations: https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/revealed-the-elite-money-behind-the-no-campaign-20230913-p5e4eh.html

 

3 hours ago, onetrack said:

he Indigenes harp on constantly about the dreadful effects of "colonisation" on their peoples. They seem to forget that colonisation has improved their lifestyles, wealth, travel ability, gave them medicinal gains - and provided them with vast sums of money, as well as land.

I think their complaint is that the wealth and health, etc don't get to them by and large.. Also, are you telling me before colonisation, they did not lead successful lives according to their definition of success? Material wealth and travel-ability didn't seem terribly important to them.

 

3 hours ago, onetrack said:

The umpteen hundred million spent on an unnecessary, unwanted, and poorly-discussed referendum vote would have been far better poured into alcohol-reduction damage programmes amongst Indigenes - poured into sexual-abuse and drug-use reduction programmes amongst Indigenes - poured into programmes designed to improve literacy and numeracy amongst Indigenes - poured into making more Indigenes useful as workers and employees.

I don't disagree with this (nor would I disagree with it also being spent ont he same issues in non-ATSI communities). And I agree, it was a wasted chance at a shot of better outcomes when previous things have been failing. Don't these programmes already exist? And are they successful? What other options are on the table to ensure the money spent on these is done in a way that connects rather than dictates to the people.

 

3 hours ago, onetrack said:

This is a people who are on the receiving end of the greatest level of social welfare largesse the nation has ever seen. They get vast amounts of royalties, compensation, and other income - yet they're still on the receiving end of specifically-tailored welfare programmes.

 

<snip>

 

https://www.griffithreview.com/articles/kartiya-are-like-toyotas/

 

These are excellent arguments for the Voice as a first step. All that money wasted. Of course, the Voice does not guarantee anything better, but once the people have said, "Yeah, we think it is important enough to change the constitution for", it brings pressure on whoever is in government to take positive actions to make it work. I have banged on about this before, but the complexity of the implementation of many of the constituional provisions belies much simpler clauses in the constitution. that that proposed for the Voice. But, say the government decided to defund the military, the High Court, etc.. would that not be electoral suicide? I am not saying to defund a voice would be suicide - I honestly don't think it is high enough up the agenda of most Australians; but there could be enough collateral damage to make any government and enough incentive to want the representatives to want to keep it effective if it were in the constitution.

 

In my not-so-humble opinion, one of the real problems with this referndum was not that there was not enough detail per se, but there was not enough explanation about what people were voting for. Again, I blame the Yes campaign - especially Albo for this. The No campaign were able to conflate constitutional provisions with the implementation of constitutional provisions and say not enough detail; and to be honest, there aren't too many people who knew the difference (hopefully they do now).

 

Now Albo and ATSI representation is between a rock and a hard place. If the ALP forge ahead, presumanly with TEAL and Greens support, to legislate for their vision (principles) of the Voice, the opposition will accuse them of going against the will of the people - and this will be amplified by the Murdoch media. Then the electoral fallout may be too difficult and the ALP will baulk, or they may take the risk, but I doubt they will. If nothig is done, we are at status quo.

 

Edited October 15, 2023 by Jerry_Atrick

[spacesailor]

ALL good point's. 

BUT

WE are a United Mob of AUSTRALIANS. 

Not a split society .

As for those " useless " bureaucrats.    ( the four departments ) .

They need a '  time out ' on the " social security " job seeker , ( Dole ) ,Just like the the rest of the unemployed. 

spacesailor