Further Effects of "The Voice" debate

[nomadpete]

13 minutes ago, Marty_d said:

We don't know what the final structure will look like.  Logically you'd have a network of elders from each community talking to maybe a state/territory representative who would be the voice to government.

 

But if it is just another advisor to government - think of it this way, how much does the government waste every year in "advisors" from the big 4, which is corporate welfare propping up shareholders (many of who are not Australian)?

 

 

Your first para is just assumptions based on the flawed notion that governments understand the word "Logically".

 

As for your last paragraph, saying that governments already waste a motza on other advisors, is hardly justification for adding any more advisors.

[facthunter]

If the government was making decisions about rec Aviation wouldn't you like the ensure they had some form of "effective" representation from Rec Aviators to input the result.   Nev

[red750]

Representatives of Rec Aviators have been giving input for ages. but most of it has been ignored.

 

[facthunter]

Because you don't have any voice like the Mining Industry Council, etc. They just wander in and out at will Donations get them the attention they demand. Your statement makes MY case for YES doesn't it?    Nev

[nomadpete]

1 hour ago, facthunter said:

If the government was making decisions about rec Aviation wouldn't you like the ensure they had some form of "effective" representation from Rec Aviators to input the result.   Nev

Yes!

As long as it is EFFECTIVE.

History shows that in the case of 'closing the gap', there has been a lot of ineffective representation, for many decades. A new advisor (aka voice) is unlikely  to change things.

 

However, a draining of the existing swamp might make a big difference. Such things as accountability, transparency of existing advisory and management policies, and expenditure.

[Marty_d]

I'd be careful about using "drain the swamp" as any sort of positive statement, since Trump.

[facthunter]

As I see it have them involved and then they "OWN" the outcomes and can't just blame Us when it doesn't work. IF it about them get them involved in the decisions. Nev

[red750]

What about the 11 indigenous politicians already in parliament, the hundreds of representative indigenous groups and the National Indigenous Australian Agency?

[facthunter]

They represent their Electorates when they are in the lower House , so the "composition' of that is the way they get elected. ie How popular they are to the majority of voters there.. Women don't go there to" just" represent Women .   Nev

[nomadpete]

28 minutes ago, red750 said:

What about the 11 indigenous politicians already in parliament, the hundreds of representative indigenous groups and the National Indigenous Australian Agency?

That is a significant issue. Is there any indication that they will listen to a new voice? Are they accountable for anything? Could anything be done to make them more effective (this is a significant  swamp issue in itself).

[spenaroo]

I'm voting No just on the question.

far too open ended and no real policy.
I cant support a "we will figure out how it works later" approach.

worked great for Brexit....

why cant they just table the bill.
and have it vote yes or no the voice amendment as presented to Parliament by xyz MP on the X/X/2022
 

[Old Koreelah]

22 minutes ago, spenaroo said:

I'm voting No just on the question.

far too open ended and no real policy.
I cant support a "we will figure out how it works later" approach.

worked great for Brexit....

why cant they just table the bill.
and have it vote yes or no the voice amendment as presented to Parliament by xyz MP on the X/X/2022
 

A referendum is require because it’s inserting an amendment into our Constitution to recognise our country’s original inhabitants and provide for them to have the ear of government (Coca Cola and lots of foreign corporations have much more influence than the Voice is ever likely to).
NZ did this long ago, but went much further, setting aside special seats in Parliament for Indig. 
Did that caused the NZ sky to fall?

 

Like everything in the Constitution, the wording is brief and concise. Read it and you’ll see.

[spenaroo]

I have no issue with it being a referendum,
I just take issue with it being so... incomplete

I would like to know the wording that is being added to the constitution, not just that they will add some.
 

Edit found it:

 

“Chapter IX Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples

129 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice

In recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia:

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 the Parliament and the Executive Government of the Commonwealth 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 matters relating to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, including its composition, functions, powers and procedures.”

 

Edited August 31, 2023 by spenaroo

[octave]

2 minutes ago, spenaroo said:

I would like to know the wording that is being added to the constitution, not just that they will add some

Isn't this it?

 

Constitutional amendment

The proposed law that Australians are being asked to approve at the referendum would insert a new section into the Constitution:

"Chapter IX Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples
129 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice

In recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia:

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 the Parliament and the Executive Government of the Commonwealth 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 matters relating to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, including its composition, functions, powers and procedures.”

 

 

[red750]

O.K. This is NOT New Zealand. Who cares what they do/did.

[red750]

Would you buy a secondhand car without taking it for a test drive? Would you buy a house without an inspection?

[Jerry_Atrick]

Thankt chaps.. Was about to launch into a diatribe again.

 

No disrespect @spenaroo, but your post did highlight just how bad a campaigner Albanese is. We are how many months after the wording was finalised and released, and there are quite knowledgeable people who still didn't knoiw it existed. On the high of accidentally winning the election, a gush of blood to the head announced, on election night, there would be a referendum on the Voice. I doubt even too many people in Aus had heard of it, let alone knew what it was about. I didn't (although to be fair, I live in the UK, but to keep up with Aussie news and politics and that is one I thought would have made prominance duiring its lifetime a few times).

 

Without having prepated the wording and had a clear message of what it was - without having pre-educated the public and lined up those from the opposition that are in favour, off he went half-cocked.. And provided ideological opposites a gaping wide opportunity to sink it by introducing confusion and misinformation.

 

I urge you to read part V, but particularly section 51 of the Australian constitution: https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Senate/Powers_practice_n_procedures/Constitution/chapter1/Part_V_-_Powers_of_the_Parliament

 

It deals with the powers of the commonwealth. Read what they have the power (and in some cases, the obligation) to do. Pick any subject - any power and tell me it is as well or better defined in terms of powers and restrictions. Let's look at one that is near and dear to most people's hearts - this time, immigration. There is a complex body of immigration law, that parliament has made over the years to try and either a) manipulate to win elections or b) implement some comproimise between our international obligations and the public wishes with respect to immigration. Yoiu would think, given the detailed and complex nature of immigration law, and the fact that Australia had the White Australia Policy, I think up to the 70's, there would be some serious definition as to the powers and constraints of immigration powers in the constitution. Yet here it is:

 

"Seciont 51:

The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power¹² to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to:

...

(xxvii): immigration and emigration;"

 

That is it... The wording of the VBoice above goes well beyond most of the definition of powers and obligations of the Commonwealth of Australia (federal government). Now, how is the propose constitutional amendment "far too open ended and no real policy" or so incomplete when compared to the other powers/obligations granted in the constitution?  Constituions are frameworks - the laws are the detail.

 

Re Brexit, everyone knew exactly what they were voting for. Like the Voice, there was a lot of disimofrmation of the consequences - but even BoJo acknowledged there would be short to medium term pain. The pollies who wanted to stay in after the referendum decided to muddy the waters on the style of Brexit, but the wording on the referendum was quite clear:

The UK doesn't have a consitution like Australia and referendums are not binding on the government/parliament, except where the bill that is passed in parliament expressly says so - and even then, parliament can subsequently enact a law nullifying it.

 

The question of the Voice is do you want to put an obligation on Australian governments to ensure they establish (or keep established) a representative body of first nations people that does not have any formal powers to compel a government to do anything, that are consulted on laws, regulations, policy making of affairs that directly affect them in matters affecting them? Pretty simple... The No Campaign have introduced so much misinformation, it is a continuing disgrace to the antics their main protaginists get up to and that for the palriamentary members of the No campaign, they still draw a public salary.

 

 

 

[Jerry_Atrick]

34 minutes ago, red750 said:

O.K. This is NOT New Zealand. Who cares what they do/did.

O.K. So, let's not learn the easy way from other's successes and mistakes, but continue making our own mistakes.. very interesting approach (sadly, though, too common in politics).

 

33 minutes ago, red750 said:

Would you buy a secondhand car without taking it for a test drive? Would you buy a house without an inspection?

On that basis, we should not have elections because we can't try each government before we buy and they should not make laws because they can't be tried before they are bought (some can, yes.. but others not).

 

The reason for consultation periods and public debate is to try and get to undertand what the outcomes would be and the best way to go about it.

 

But, we do have experience from ATSIC to the current representative bodies (NIAA, NAIDOC). All this referendum does is ensure that the government must have a representative body. After the voice, it may well continue as it is, but it ensures that something like ATSIC, where the Howard government systematically defunded it over time to the point where it can't function and, with the sensationalisation of the failings, gave them the opportunity to dismantle formal representation.

 

In practicality, unless there are issues with the current representation, nothing much will probably change after the referendum save for a wider representation in the bodes, except that no matter how much future governments may want to tear down such representation and no matter how much the defund it, they will still have to provide at least some funding to say have a representative body and their intentions will be laid bare.

Edited August 31, 2023 by Jerry_Atrick

[facthunter]

Just who is in the House of REPS is up to the electorate and is there to please the electorate first and the Party they belong to second, if they are not Independents. They ( the Independant's) are NOT a Party. In the Senate. you are listed by your party and get in depending on how near the top your number is and how many total votes that Party wins.  IF you desert the Party you won by being in it you still continue as an Independent. Just WHY that IS ,eludes Me. IF someone died they would just be replaced  by the next in Line in the Party.. Nev

[onetrack]

The thing that gets me about this whole deal is - what will the Indigenes as a people, look like in another 200 years time, and will they be a stand-alone, recognisable group with a distinct culture and customs from the Europeans? 

 

All I see today is "Elders" and "Indigenous spokespersons" who appear to have about 75% to 95% white European ancestry - yet they all claim there's a huge stand-alone Indigenous culture and customs that need special treatment and special laws and special protection.

 

I call BS on this approach and AFIAC, I reckon the Indigenous tribes that were here when the Europeans rolled up, would not recognise or give any validity to their current "Elders".

AFAIC, the word "Aboriginal Elder" is one of the most overused terms today, and a term that has been watered down until it really holds no meaning to anyone who is full-blood Aboriginal, that is still carrying out their original culture and customs - if such people still do actually exist.

 

The bottom line is I believe that the vast majority of Indigenes today are lost between white European society and customs, and the culture and customs that they believe they have the right to continue - even though very few of these "Elders" have ever led a truly traditional Indigenous way of life.

 

In 200 years, the Indigenes as we know them then, will again bear no resemblance to the Indigenes we see today, thanks to continually-watered down bloodlines - and the "Elders" of that future period will be seen as merely trying to support a tribal culture that no-one recognises any longer, and which effectively died out in the first 150 years of European settlement. And those "Elders" will not be recognisable as a distinct racial group, they will look just like many other Australians of hugely mixed ancestry.

 

As a result, the "Voice" will be seen as a useless instrument supporting a small group of Indigeneous diehards who continue to insist that a specific Indigenous culture is alive and well, practiced on a large scale, and which culture still needs special protection and rights.

[spacesailor]

Re!  NZ .

The MAORI  have ' their ' own court system. 

If a ' pakiha ' falls foul of their Maori neighbour it will end in a " MAORI COURT " room .

Not equal justice it seems .

spacesailor

 

[spenaroo]

@Jerry_Atrick I agree with your statements.

 

I think this is a failing of the message, doesn't matter how good it is if you cant communicate effectively.
With the yes arguments first response being to yell racist, or that your a bad person if you don't support us. 
Virtue signaling, Instead of education and addressing peoples concern.

 

I am willing to talk and discuss my views here as its a forum with reasonable (in the legal sense) people.... But I would never ever discuss this on Facebook.

it turns people off, and I suspect if it fails. Its because the information wasn't communicated clearly.

The No argument seeds questions, and the Yes argument shouts and waves flags, and paints the side of airplanes, instead of answering them.
I think this is why the polling keeps showing the support dropping. 
people don't like being called names or being belittled and will respond in secret at the ballot box.

I'll be honest I would be tempted to vote No purely out of spite.... but I think this issue is more important then that.

 

Edited August 31, 2023 by spenaroo

[facthunter]

The NO vote says" If you don't understand it, Don't vote for it" and then proceeds to deliberately confuse it.  THAT was the trick ABBott always used.  Nev

[spenaroo]

Its a good trick,

the 25 extra pages was a nice one too. with the Uluru statement... bet they wish the meeting notes weren't submitted with it now. gave plenty of ammunition with the talk of reparation's they contained

I think I found the answer....
the Yes campaign needs this guy

Edited August 31, 2023 by spenaroo

[facthunter]

We can do without the Tricks (Deception) We need a reliable factchecker fast or we'll all be running around hating each  other.. 

 Meanwhile I'll use  "Is that the truth ,or did you read it in a Murdoch Paper" as guidance..  Nev