Further Effects of "The Voice" debate

[spenaroo]

you mean something like an public funded, fully accountable media organization.

that that has a mandated impartiality, that is audited 4 times a year.

[facthunter]

Some regard "Knowingly Publishing Falsities" as free speech. It's NO secret.. As it is , who's watching the watchers?  The Organisation is funded by the media Itself.. Impartiality is above falsities in the degree of assessment and Judgement needed. I've never learned what the value of a proven Liars word is. I suggest Infinitely small. Nev

[old man emu]

50 minutes ago, spenaroo said:

you mean something like an public funded, fully accountable media organization.

that that has a mandated impartiality, that is audited 4 times a year.

Is that the A,B,C of it?

[spenaroo]

Yeah,

though is it odd that I trust SBS more for news?

[onetrack]

SBS news is worth substantially less than Merde-ock News

[spacesailor]

Facts. 

When " Ayers Rock " was returned to native ownership. 

It suddenly changed from a ' tourist resort '  to a " sacred site " with  "No photographs signs " everywhere.  And no more climbing to the top for those beautiful views. 

spacesailor

[Jerry_Atrick]

Your point is (apart from a factual inaccuracy)?

 

You're conflating a natural legal process that happens every day in our society with the estasblishment of a representative body that consults on matters directly affecting their community.

 

Native Title was not established by any Aboriginal representative body, nor the Aussie parliament. It was established by a case brought to the High Court of Austalia in Mavo v Queensland (cases 1 and 2). Thi High Court of Australia declared the declaration of terra nullius over Australia as defective (wrong) and therefore, void, on the evidence presented to it, noting that the defendant was the QLD government and had ample resources and deployed them to defend the case. This is no different than the recent case where a Gold Coast couple, who were bona fide purchases of their house were booted out and ownership was handed back to an elderly widow because she was fraudulently duped into selling the house by the agent.. The couple did get back their $2.3m (or were suing the QLD government for it.. I can't remember). The High Court found that a fraud was perpetuated that denied Aboriginals rightful ownership. But, of course, Australia had moved on some 200 years by this time, so they made a policy decision to find a construct of Native Title, and it can co-exist with Westminster title.

 

Your factual inaccurcy is that while Uluru was named Ayre's Rock, it ceased to be asacred site. That is clearly wrong, as to the native title holders, it never ceased to be sacred; the whiteys had exploited it. The reason why control of Uluru was handed to the Aboriginals is that a) it was proved to be sacred to them (again, in a court), and there was no Westminster title covering the land at the time.

 

The above was a due legal process. All the "Voice" is, is an amendment to the constitution that compels the government to maintain a first nations representative body that is to be consulted on matters directly affecting the first nations' commity. It is only consultative; it can't compel anyone to do anything. And it is proposed to be establioshed in the constituion because precious (conservative) governments have weapomnised them and ultimately dismantled them. Why is that so hard to get through to people?

 

Of course, with the exception of more extremem representations, it would be a daring government that would reject representations. But for some reason, the No campaign doesn't touch on that.

[Jerry_Atrick]

er.. correction to the above (noticed it too late to edit) Mavo v Queenland is actually Mabo v Queensland...

[willedoo]

15 minutes ago, Jerry_Atrick said:

er.. correction to the above (noticed it too late to edit) Mavo v Queenland is actually Mabo v Queensland...

That's better. Eddie Mavo just doesn't have that certain ring to it.

[Old Koreelah]

On 1/9/2023 at 9:30 AM, facthunter said:

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

“If you don’t know, vote no” has a catchy ring. But an informed vote is so much better. If finding out is easy – and it is – why not take the opportunity to cast an informed vote at a referendum of great importance for Australia?

 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/sep/01/indigenous-voice-to-parliament-yes-campaign-what-you-need-to-know

[facthunter]

There's not much done  by the media to inform  you. Fear & Hate works better and sells more newspapers and gets  "selected" talk back listeners to reinforce the HATE.. Everyone's Happy being angry. . Conspiracies thrive. We hear what we want to hear. and it goes for FACT.   Nev

[Old Koreelah]

Onetrack and others on here have made valid comments supporting the No case, but I’ve heard too many No supporters simply spouting stuff they read in the Daily Telegraph.

To me, this is like a red rag to a bull, yet another demonstration of the Murdochs manipulating Australian public opinion; they’ve been doing it for well over a hundred years.

[facthunter]

It's a long time since Rupee changed his nationality to American. Why is a foreigner allowed to Push some thing that concerns Australians Mostly? Well of course you have Overseas Mining Interests to start with. It's still Blatantly WRONG and the LIBS and NP are into OL King Coal and Gas Not Agriculture and the Environment and the Climate. .  Nev

[nomadpete]

Just because I admit to being  a 'no' voter, there is no need to brand me as a conspiracy theorist.

 

This thread was supposed to be about 'Further Effects...'

 

My opinion is flavoured by the further  effects. And I really  cannot see any likely grand outcomes, further  down  the track. After the voice is implemented, what is expected  to happen to fix the inequities?

 

There is desperate need for closing the gap between  the people  most in need,  and the people who hold the purse strings.

 

I cannot convince myself that the voice will change things.

 

So, my 'no' vote is not based  on any hysteria, or weak mindedness, or Murdork influence. I do not read the Daily telograph. It is based on my personal experience in and around numerous indigenous  communities. And on the indigenous  individuals that I have crossed tracks with.

[octave]

9 minutes ago, nomadpete said:

There is desperate need for closing the gap between  the people  most in need,  and the people who hold the purse strings.

 

And that is one of the reasons I am voting yes.

[facthunter]

Throwing more money isn't the answer. Things seem worse than ever. Get them involved in decisions affecting them and they OWN it more. Eventually you can't have privilege based on race by definition as It's then a form of separate development (Apartheid). Equal OPPORTUNITY. You can't argue against that but you won't get City amenities in the outback for anyone, Thats Geography and economics.   Nev

[gareth lacey]

The indigenous peoples get a lot of gov money through the various corporations that are managed by indigenous peoples, i have worked in various places in aus every state,and can sya that most of the local aboriginal in these areas were family people who worked for a living , bringing their kids up with education and good family life , the disadvantage peoples (indigenous and white) who dont have thes advantages have allways been left behind ,pouring money ito it seems to not get the results require, so the voice somehow ,magically will change this ,indigenous people have for me allways been part of Aus nothing will change with this voice , they have representation at Federal and state levels of government, the voice will not change this, i recognize them as my fellow Australians , nothing more or less its a NO for me 

[Old Koreelah]

2 hours ago, facthunter said:

It's a long time since Rupee changed his nationality to American. Why is a foreigner allowed to Push some thing that concerns Australians…

Even a cursory investigation of his career would find him not fit to run a newspaper, let alone a global media empire.

2 hours ago, facthunter said:

Mostly? Well of course you have Overseas Mining Interests to start with. It's still Blatantly WRONG and the LIBS and NP are into OL King Coal and Gas Not Agriculture and the Environment and the Climate. .  Nev

Farmers are starting to realise that even the Nats put mining ahead of agriculture. 

[facthunter]

They'll never vote Labor while it has THAT Name.   Nev

[Old Koreelah]

Never say never; a few years ago I attended a large meeting to protest plans to dig up the Liverpool Plains for coal. The guest speaker Jack Munday told a similar story to mine: of growing up on a dairy farm before becoming a builders labourer in Sydney. How his union took firm action to protect our heritage.
 

Never, in all my dreams, could I have imagined a hall full of farmers giving a militant unionist and former member of the Communist Party a standing ovation.

[spacesailor]

Giving more dollars to those in need ! .

Zero of that $ 364.6 MILLIONS 

For this ' referendum '  will go to the " needy  " .

Just another layer of Bureaucrocrats.  To suck  out money from the coffers. 

spacesailor

[pmccarthy]

Yes, but no. That is an established Aussie response.

[Old Koreelah]

5 hours ago, spacesailor said:

Giving more dollars to those in need ! .

Zero of that $ 364.6 MILLIONS 

For this ' referendum '  will go to the " needy  " .

Just another layer of Bureaucrocrats.  To suck  out money from the coffers. 

spacesailor

Spacey I’m tired of people moaning about the cost of this government actually consulting the people; it’s peanuts compared to the billions the previous mob wasted on foreign consultants. They also casually wasted more than that in some pre-election stunts. 

[spacesailor]

BUT 

None of those $ millions,  will go ,were it's needed .

Just another gang of spendthrifts,  with their hands in the till .

The Office for Aboriginal and Torres Strait islanders. 

 

 " The office provides strategic advice to the minister.,: "

" The office coordinates a whole of government to issues affecting ., 

 

This is from the government website .

Already expensive with nothing going to the  NEEDY. 

spacesailor

 

 

 

[Jerry_Atrick]

The NIAA annd NAIDOC will probably be folded into what may become the voice; so there probably will not be a net increase in costs as a result., Even if there were, on the assumption it is to pay first nations people who know their people and the cultural, physical, and mental dimensions of their people, they are a lot cheaper and much better value for money than the big 4.

 

Many years ago, I was doing a contract for London Underground, and there were two ex Big 4 counsultants of the same firm working with me. They joked and laughed how their firm was retained by a prominent Melbourne metal recyclign firm, and their advice, which wwas implemented took them from the number one private recycler to about number 4, from memory. But to be fair, I am working with a team from the same firm at the moment on an urgent piece of work, and the team they have sent seem to be competent, but not worth the 4x a contractor's rate per day.

 

19 hours ago, nomadpete said:

Just because I admit to being  a 'no' voter, there is no need to brand me as a conspiracy theorist.

 

This thread was supposed to be about 'Further Effects...'

 

My opinion is flavoured by the further  effects. And I really  cannot see any likely grand outcomes, further  down  the track. After the voice is implemented, what is expected  to happen to fix the inequities?

 

There is desperate need for closing the gap between  the people  most in need,  and the people who hold the purse strings.

 

I cannot convince myself that the voice will change things.

 

So, my 'no' vote is not based  on any hysteria, or weak mindedness, or Murdork influence. I do not read the Daily telograph. It is based on my personal experience in and around numerous indigenous  communities. And on the indigenous  individuals that I have crossed tracks with.

Yes - the thread is named the further effects, but it has morphed to a debate. So, maybe mods can rename it to The Voice Debate.

 

I don't think the voice guarantees any outcomes - good or bad. What it does guarantee is a first nations representative body is consulted on matters affecting their community. In the same way, we can't guarantee that the armed forces will successfully defend Austrlia in the case of an invaasion, or even operate effectively against boat people (something they are currently deployed for). In fact, there is plenty of evidence that it is not effective in its stated aims. But does that mean, we should defund the armed forces and remove the power from the constitution?

 

Remember, the constitution is about providing powers and obligations of the state. There are no guarantees that any of the powers or obligations will be used to create "grand outcomes".  How many grand oputcomes are the result of the government of the day?

 

18 hours ago, gareth lacey said:

The indigenous peoples get a lot of gov money through the various corporations that are managed by indigenous peoples, i have worked in various places in aus every state,and can sya that most of the local aboriginal in these areas were family people who worked for a living , bringing their kids up with education and good family life , the disadvantage peoples (indigenous and white) who dont have thes advantages have allways been left behind ,pouring money ito it seems to not get the results require, so the voice somehow ,magically will change this ,indigenous people have for me allways been part of Aus nothing will change with this voice , they have representation at Federal and state levels of government, the voice will not change this, i recognize them as my fellow Australians , nothing more or less its a NO for me 

Again, the Voice isn't purporting it is a silver bullet - or magical outcome. When has anyone voted for anything that would provide such an outcome? Virtually all votes are a hope for an outcome at best.

 

The voice simply compels the government of the day to fund a representative body of first nations people. The idea is for them to advise the best way to address the issues with the money rather than spend more. In other words, minimising the risk of "pouring money into it and not getting the results required." No guarantees, but if you ask the people in the know before you spend the money, you may get a better result - especially if you are compelled to ask.

 

It also means the government can't do what they did with ATSIC.. sort of.. In reality, a govenment can provide the minimum funding so the voice can't operate, and they can announce they will sack everyione and reconstitute it with Jacinta Price as the CEO, etc.. It is not a guarantee of anything other than the government will be forced to listen, if not heed, to what a representative body says.

 

And before someone says, "Yeah, but because it doesn't guarantee anything, or because it doesn't stipulate a minimum standard, or the compostiion, etc.".. The consitution is not about that; it is about setting out the powers, obligations and limits thereof of the nation state; parliament, the courts, and the executive (government and executive of the public service) fill in the blanks..  Again, look at part V  of Australia'sd constitution - all powers are one liners or not much more and there are definitely no minimum standards or golden outcomes in there, nor guaranteed.

 

BTW, I am only trying to provide the context of inserting any power or obligation in the constituion. People should vote on whether or they feel the government should be compelled under the constitution to fund a first nations representative body, and consult with it (listen to, but not necessarily heed the advice)... Because, that is all the referendum is. As with every other power and obligation, parliament will legislate, the executive will implement, and the courts will rule on it. And over time, through the democratic processes, the laws, implementations, and rulings will change to reflect changes in society and progress on first nations' affairs - or the whims of Muderoch et al.

Edited September 2, 2023 by Jerry_Atrick