Further Effects of "The Voice" debate

[old man emu]

Let's say that the result of the referendum is "Yes", and the legislation to establish the machinery of its operation has been completed. After that, the next task is to appoint the members of the Board.

 

Now, what criteria would a Government use in its selection process? The overriding selection criteria seems to me to be how a person performed during the referendum debate. In other words, would the  "No" people have much chance of getting on, or would we see the Board only composed of the "Yes" people?

[Jerry_Atrick]

I am not sure what your point is?

 

The Australian Tourism Authority that put ScoMo in as a disastrous CEO or head of marketing or whatever would have done so under legislation (primary and secondary made by the responsible department) and not the constitution. Aha! but you've got me as this is not an authority enshrined in the constitution.

 

OK. Let's look at some very important constitutional appointments. The judges of the high court. Chapter III, section 72 provides the governor general makes the appointments of judges, but like most things the GG does, it is on the advice of the PM and in this case, the PM takes advice of the Attorney General. All are political appointments. So, what judges of what colour get in? At least in Australia, it is still, like the UK, based on politically neutral conventions, but there is no constitutional protection, as who appoints the GG?

 

The chief of staff of the defence forces, who could (in theory) command a military coup? The constitution (section 68) has the same provision as section 72, above. and the detail is contained t's all contained in the Defence Act 1903 (made by parliament) and delegated legislation, regulations, etc. OK.. But what about the fiendish public servant executives? Section 67 says until parliament says otherwise (and parliament has since said otherwise), "the appointment and removal of all other officers of the Executive Government of the Commonwealth shall be vested in the Governor‑General in Council..."

 

Virtually every head of every department, force, authority, etc, is set politically... not prescribed nor guaranteed to be impartial by the constitution. Why, because it is a consultative body with no powers, should it be any different or held to a higher level? Could it be because it is about first nations people?

 

Edited September 2, 2023 by Jerry_Atrick

[nomadpete]

3 hours ago, Jerry_Atrick said:

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.

So,I think we agree that past and present processes have failed to deliver good outcomes.

Now, convince me how rolling these failed departments into a new advisory voice will bring about great results?

 

This is my bugbear. I would really like to see the system get a dose of salts and transparency. But I am concerned that creating the voice will just enable  the old (failing) ways to continue under a new banner.

[facthunter]

No one gets to do everything they want to in ANY Society.  No one should be persecuted as a group either. unless they are a real threat and define themselves as such .   There were hundreds of small tribes here, surviving in a very harsh climate, for a very long time ,having consistent barneys with their local neighbours. It's a bit of a jump to call them NATIONS and they were ill equipped to defend them selves from any power that seriously wanted to use the place. The Brits wanted it as a DUMP to locate  criminals and the poor,  (Felons) ,out of sight and mind. As SLAVES they built roads and the more advanced development and away we go. It's STILL a HARSH  Modern first World country and it needs infrastructure, like  road rail  Ships  Ports and planes to make life more certain for ALL of the current inhabitants who are quite vocal when floods etc damage such infrastructure that we take for granted, Mostly..  There's NO way you can wind the clock back 300 years .

 THIS  I  consider as background comment for all to consider. The  Voice  in the current circumstances gets YES from me as the way it is now is a failed way of using a lot of money and not getting good value with  it .Nev

Edited September 3, 2023 by facthunter
expand

[willedoo]

 I don't think the yes camp has done a good job of explaining it to the masses. If they had, the polls would be more in their favour. Current opinion polls are putting the referendum at a loss. I think there would be different groups of people with a no answer to the polls. First would be those taking the 'if you don't know, vote no' option. Next would be the people who don't think it's the right option to help the Aboriginals. Another group would be those with legal and constitutional concerns. Then there's the group who don't think Aboriginals should be given anything at all. There's not much the yes camp can do about the last lot, but if the other groups determine the referendum outcome, it's either a failure of the yes camp to explain the Voice or their model is flawed.

 

I can understand the argument of some that the Voice proposal is not the right way to get a better outcome for Aboriginal people. If the referendum fails there will be much debate as to why it did. Personally I think they should have let it cook a little longer. The referendum is next month and a lot of people are still confused by it.

[old man emu]

2 hours ago, Jerry_Atrick said:

I am not sure what your point is?

I think you answered your own question. The second criterion that an applicant would need (after claiming Aboriginality) would be how well they tow the government line. That's why I say that, under the current government policy, any applicant would have to have been an outspoken "YES" person. Anyone who might have raised legitimate doubts about the efficacy of The Voice would not be favoured, despite all other positive qualities they might possess.

 

Also, it seems that a lot of the Aboriginal proponents of the idea are urbanites who are more European in culture than Aboriginal. Growing up in an urbanised European society, with all the benefits of access to health, housing, education and employment opportunity, how could they relate to the sick, illiterate (in both their native language and English), lacking employment in their own traditional lands, and existing in habitations not much better than their ancestors' temporary humpies?

 

We don't need an addition to the Constitution. We need a government that has the moral fortitude to call, "Enough!" and look at the facts and figures of the roots of the disadvantages life in areas remote from the general population creates. An inquiry to determine why the money we, as taxpayers, willing (?) provide is not getting results. Perhaps it is time to adopt a form of government that runs itself on sound business principles to apply the profits of the Nation's efforts to the benefit of the those whose efforts produced the profits. And in this I am quite happy to reward the application of management skills of the CEO and upper management equally with the efforts of the tea lady. 

[old man emu]

5 minutes ago, willedoo said:

Then there's the group who don't think Aboriginals should be given anything at all.

As a further effect of the debate, maybe the size of this group has been diminished. Maybe the reason for needing The Voice has awakened an awareness of the difficulties of Aborigines in the people who previously hadn't given them a thought as they fight their own battles for survival. This might cause them to ask, "If its happening to them, will it happen to me?"

[Bruce Tuncks]

I don't know of a single example where the "voice" would have changed anything for the better. As if any recent Australian government would do anything pertaining  the aborigines without consulting their own department of aboriginal affairs, or whatever it is called now.

AND I am offended by them being called "first nations" people. They were nothing of the sort, they were a bunch of warring tribes, and the result of this "first nations" stuff is to make people like me think that the "yes" vote begins with a lie. My prediction is that the "no" vote will sweep through. If I worked, say for the ABC, there is no way I would present as anything but a "yes" voter....  but in the privacy of the ballot....

[facthunter]

Abbott was the minister for Aborigines and Womens affairs. What could be worse than that? 

[Bruce Tuncks]

"good outcomes" ? What if they were absolutely incompatible with "veneration of culture?"

For example, Trachoma, a disease that sends you blind. It is caused ( and easily stopped) by the habit of face-washing.

As a yes voter, what would you do about Trachoma?

[facthunter]

WHEN it fails Dutton will have another one, HE says. That is just  to make this one more likely to fail.  It's NOT hard to get the facts on this but first you have to WANT to.  Nev

[Bruce Tuncks]

I have to agree though that I don't like the company ( like Abott) here on the "no" side.

[willedoo]

7 minutes ago, old man emu said:

As a further effect of the debate, maybe the size of this group has been diminished. Maybe the reason for needing The Voice has awakened an awareness of the difficulties of Aborigines in the people who previously hadn't given them a thought as they fight their own battles for survival. This might cause them to ask, "If its happening to them, will it happen to me?"

With some maybe. By referring to that group, I was trying to find a PC way of describing the racist element who basically loathe Aboriginals and the concept of giving them anything that we don't get. That group will vote no simply because they don't like Aboriginals and don't think we should be giving them anything.

[facthunter]

IF you do exactly what HE ( T Abbot) Doesn't want YOU to do, you Can't go wrong.  Nev

Edited September 3, 2023 by facthunter

[nomadpete]

Although not directly, Jerry raises a important  point about the implementation of the voice.

 

Implementation is at this stage very vague because  it is at the constitution level, which  cannot specify details of application  of intent.

 

Once enshrined in the constitution, I think the government of the day  must start a process of forming and passing  legislation to create the framework  and rules of engagement.  (Is that right Jerry?)

 

So we can expect a lot of time and energy to be devoted to this process.

 

And hopefully the outcome will involve greater auditing and transparency by the departments that do the actual work. If this happens it MIGHT be a pathway to better outcomes for those most in need.

 

In my opinion  it would  have been  a better plan if the referendum asked the two questions  separately:-

 

"Do you want a line added to our constitution  to acknowledge the indigenous people?"

 

"Do uoy want a line in the constitution  to provide a 'voice' to advise government  about  matters affecting  indigenous Australians?"

 

I think there would be a resounding yes to the first and a close race for the second.

[Bruce Tuncks]

I reckon trachoma needs some tough-love to treat. I would make it a condition that you needed to present , with your family, clean with washed faces to collect your siddown money. And that would be just the start.

 

[Bruce Tuncks]

I like your idea nomad. If the constitution just said how the Aborigines were here first, there would be no complaints from the likes of me.

[octave]

I don't think anyone is going to change anyone's mind. This is why I now only say what I believe and I don't tell others what they should believe.

 

There are several countries that are similar to Australia in that they were colonized and have a pre-existing population.   Canada, New Zealand,   the USA, Sweden, Norway and Finland.    

 

All of these countries have some form of treaty or indigenous parliament and or constitutional recognition.

 

The question I ask myself is, "Are these countries more divided than us?"    Are thier indigenous people doing better or worse than our indigenous people?     Are there other countries that don't have either some kind of treaty, constitutional recognition or advisory arrangement?

 

It makes sense to me to examine other country's systems in order to see which things work and which things don't.  The one thing we can all agree on is that the present system does not work. 

 

 

[Bruce Tuncks]

I  think this is a true story, it is about an american-indian multi-millionaire footballer who came to Australia to help the local Aborigines fight better. Apparently he gave up and went home disillusioned. Personally, I reckon our abos have nothing in common with amerindians, maoris, negros from Africa or anyone else.  As I said, they were a bunch of warring tribes and they saw the whites as a potential ally against their true enemies, the surrounding tribes.

Some of them have talents in sports, arts and crafts, and they have sure learned how to play the bureaucracy. I personally would really like it if they were to become more autonomous, alas the whitefeller constructions of money and cities are too good to pass up.

I wonder if they would like it if whites and all their works were to suddenly disappear. Don't try putting yourself in their shoes, their shoes would be the first to go. 

[red750]

Nev, you're playing that cracked record again.

[facthunter]

It's true though.  Plenty of your stuff is blatantly political. I think you are abusing your moderator position..   Nev.

[old man emu]

33 minutes ago, facthunter said:

I think you are abusing your moderator position.. 

That is a serious allegation to make. Red does involve himself in heated debate, pressing home his view, as do we all. However, I have yet to see him pull on the moderator hat to stifle that debate, or those who a strongly against him. I haven't see anything in these debates that would lead me, exercising moderator abilities, to delete a post or issue a warning stronger the "Steady on there, sport".

 

And what is "blatantly political" in this debate? Sure, it does relate to a topic  pertaining to civil affairs, or government. And in what we claim is a democratically governed society, it is normal to take sides in party politics". Those who do take sides have to be biased towards one side or the other. So, perhaps a more correct comment about Red's postings is that they are biased towards the side that is opposite to Facthunter.

[facthunter]

IF he stops I will. I just want equal treatment.  He does have the power to take action against me. I have no power to stop him picking me up and I don't like it.  if he doesn't self censure himself as he's also an offender IF I am.. It's the "off topic" section. Nev.

[old man emu]

14 minutes ago, facthunter said:

He does have the power to take action against me.

Has he? No. Would he? Not if he doesn't want to get suspended. 

 

How about you keep the argument between equals and ignore what other functions he might have?

[facthunter]

Well it's not between equals is it?.  Really. Nev.