Further Effects of "The Voice" debate

[Marty_d]

Polling.  How is that done these days?  

If they use home phones, good luck with that, very few people under 50 bother with them.  Those of us who have them usually work during the day and not in the mood for unsolicited calls in the evening.  So they don't know what I'm thinking from that.

Email?  Taken out by spam filters.

Mobile?  Again - same as home phone.  Life's too short to spend time answering polling questions.

 

So my question is.  Where does the polling come from, and how do they correct for demographics, employment etc?

[facthunter]

You can hardly trust anything anymore.  Nev

[onetrack]

The results for the polling for several recent elections have displayed a major disparity as regards the final outcome - thus showing their polling is not particularly accurate.

I also believe a lot of people change their mind as they're heading to the polls, too.

 

I hate to think what the referendum vote checkers find scrawled on a lot of the vote papers. I'll wager they'll find a lot of insulting messages towards the Indigenes, who have little time for them after being assaulted or robbed by Indigenes, or who have had unsavoury interactions with them.

 

Interestingly, both my stepdaughter and stepson, who have very mixed lineage (Seychellese, Dutch Lebanese, Arabic, Irish and Australian lineage), and who are quite obviously not Anglo-Saxon (SS has actually been thought of as Indigenous while a passenger on an aircraft, by an old Indigenous lady seated next to him - who even asked him, "what mob do you belong to?". He was quite p***** off about her question) - were both reasonably positively oriented towards Indigenes, as youngsters.

 

However, after numerous unsavoury life experiences and interactions with Indigenes over the years, (including being robbed by one group of Indigenes to the tune of $35,000 worth of house contents and house damage), neither of them will even give the time of day, to anyone with Indigenous heritage, today. And there's a lot of people very much like them, as regards their opinion towards Indigenes.

[Jerry_Atrick]

8 hours ago, old man emu said:

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.

Again, I fail to understand your point. Your assertion is that this will be the case, but how do you know until laws are ennacted? What is your evidence? Has there been a speech or policy document released? By those that would be framing the legilsation in the unlikely event it gets up?

8 hours ago, old man emu said:

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.

OK - that may be the case - depending on how appointments are enacted, but my point is that there is nothing in the constitution that stops bias (yes people) being appointed to far more important constiutional roles such as the high court judges, which assert controls over the parliament and government; nor the heads of the armed forces; which can thwart any constitutional order if they wish. Your point is that a mere consultative body has to have a higher standard for it to be acceptable - or have I missed something? It seems you're basing your argument on conjecture.

 

And don't forget, say it was decided to determine exolicitly how to appoint the board and representatives, and for some reason, it turned out not to meet the desired outcomes and yes people could easily be appointed, by puttiung it in the contitution, you would need another referendum to change it.

 

8 hours ago, old man emu said:

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?

I am not sure of the relevance, except that are you suggesting the majority of non-urban first nations are against it? Or are you saying there is a general first nations' gentry that don't understand the issues and they will likely be appointed as the consultative representatives - and that levels of employment, wealth, and health are consistent with non-first nations people?  From my experience, urban Aboriginals weren't fairing too well on average, either - but yes, they have a slightly different set of problems, but maybe with the same or similar root causes. Again, it seems a little crystal ball gazing..

 

8 hours ago, old man emu said:

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.

In a perfect world, yes. But sadly, even this government, which is far better than the last seems to compromise that moral fortitude (denying Qatar Airlines additional flights, for example, and don't get me started on private hearings for NACC). And one thing is for certain, there will be many more governments not only with less moral fortitide, but probably abundant immoral fortitude, I can't think of a better way to guarantee the government to be compelled to consult with first nations people on matters affecting them, then enshrining it in the constitution. What you are asking, er hoping for is, let's be honest, wishful thinking. But, I doi agree, even enshrining it in the constitution is no guarantee, but at least issues will be elevated and the government can be taken to court should the render the consultation process nothing more than a tick box exerxcise. Ironically, the decision may well come doen to the bias of judges appointed, which the constitution doesn't protect from.

 

8 hours ago, old man emu said:

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.

Outside your original point, but I think you are quite right. And, gtiven the first nations people had their land illehally takken without a treaty way back when (unlike the treaty with the Moaris in NZ), they were displaced, suffered from not being recognised as citizens in their own country for the best part of 150 years or more, and there have been systematic transgressions and institutional racism to a much higher extent than other minorities, leading to all sorts of inter-generational issues, they would appear to be a people that should enjoy a fair share of the profits of the country to be directed to help them get back to an even keel - on their terms (not necessarily dressing up in a suit and going to church).

[Jerry_Atrick]

9 hours ago, nomadpete said:

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?

That was my guess, but what is the reason for their failuire? Is it because they are incompetent, or the government and public service being incompetent, not even asking for advice, or asking for advice after they have decided what they are going to do (and like CASA, would not want to backtrack through pride when they propose something stupid)? I don't know. If they are that bad, I am (reasonably) sure that they will then be dissolved and a new representative body formed, like they did with the AAT - which was stacked with LNP staffers and wannabes - but no one really seems to think that is a big issue - until they need something decided by the AAT.

 

If there is a constitutional requirement for the consultative body, it provides a much bigger incentive for a government to do iit better as they run the risk of being accused of acting unconstitutionally, and ultimately being taken to  the High Court.

Edited September 3, 2023 by Jerry_Atrick

[Jerry_Atrick]

9 hours ago, nomadpete said:

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.

There is nothing in the constitution that requires transparency of anything the government does, that I am aware of, anyway.

[Jerry_Atrick]

8 hours ago, nomadpete said:

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?)

Given that this would be an obligation of the government, yes.. But one would hope that they have the bones of it already.. I will get onto Albos lack of campaign ability shortly..

 

8 hours ago, nomadpete said:

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

Normally, no.. as the ducks would be lined up.. but I am not confident Albo has too many ducks in line should it get up. He didn't seem to give it a lot of thought or have a plan with the election night pledge, which even caught his new ministers by surprise I read today.

 

8 hours ago, nomadpete said:

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 would agree with this, although probably go from the Voice to an actual treaty - something that would no doubt please Lydia Thorpe. This is what the Aussie Human Rights Commission has to say: https://humanrights.gov.au/our-work/about-constitutional-recognition

 

Albo is a shocker at campaigning. Everyone knows that to get something over the line in a constitutional referendum, you have to have bipartisan support.  And a good campaigner will get that before they start the public process. All Albo did is open an opportunity for Dutton to oppose it to score political points. Also, Albo knows Dutton and a lot of the senior LNP are still ideolgues rather than with the moral fibre to lead a country. So, he knew he could probably never count on the opposition to formally support it. In which case, he would have done the first nations population much better service by implementing what he would have considered the necessary changes should the Voice become constitutional, tweak out the mistakes, get some early runs on the board no matter how small and then approach the opposition. If they failed to support it, he could then still go to the electorate while highlighting how out of touch, ideologtical, and even racist they are. Either way it would have had a much better chance as referendums are rarely won until the are announced after the majority of the public have decided to go for it.

 

[Jerry_Atrick]

9 hours ago, Bruce Tuncks said:

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....

I am sorry if I offended your sensibilities. History, however suggests there were over 250 separate terratorial areas of Australia prior to white settlement, where there were clearly distinct languages, laws, customs and cultures, and organised societies. In additon, history suggests that there were organised trade between neighbouring territoties, and there were protocols for receiving and visiting neighbouring territories people and a form of accepted laws of dealing with disputes that arose between them. And yes, they did fight each other.. but remind me.. Aren't European countries defined territories of different languages, cultures, laws, societal structures, etc? isn't there something going on between Ukraine and Russia at this very moment? And hasn't Europe been at war almost continuously or fighting amongst different nations, creating new nations as late as 2008 (Kosovo) and Montenegro (2006). As of 2019, 2 of the 5 newest contries were in Erupe as the result of squabbles and warring tribes, and that did not include Russia taking Crimea:https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/slideshows/these-are-the-5-youngest-countries-in-the-world?slide=4  Let's not mention the wars, though.

 

So please understand out of respect to your sensibilities, I am calling them first nations people as it most if not all respects, they were peoples of nations.

 

Edited September 3, 2023 by Jerry_Atrick

[Jerry_Atrick]

2 hours ago, onetrack said:

hate to think what the referendum vote checkers find scrawled on a lot of the vote papers. I'll wager they'll find a lot of insulting messages towards the Indigenes, who have little time for them after being assaulted or robbed by Indigenes, or who have had unsavoury interactions with them.

As a casual polling clertk in the mid-90s based at Kensington Primary School's polling booth, most of the spoiled papers had doodles of usually male gentalia of varying degrees of accuracy; some that wold be at home in physiology text books.

 

Thee was trhe odd "F&ck em" and "ar$eholes", but doodles was the preferred method of conveying condemnation of our candidates.

 

Although, I did not do a referendum, so maybe it will be different.

Edited September 3, 2023 by Jerry_Atrick

[spacesailor]

" they were " first tribes here .

But

Now , we have a Nation of states with state & Federal laws that encompass those ' first nation people

 AND the rest of US  in Australia .

25.5 million of us here , plus 1 million of THEM .Who are to be given preferential government access. 

SO much for ' one vote per person ' .

spacesailor

[Old Koreelah]

2 hours ago, facthunter said:

You can hardly trust anything anymore.  Nev

That deserves a thread of its own.

In Poland during the Solidarność uprising, it was said that nobody trusted anything said by the Communist government, but they had faith in the Catholic priesthood.

At the same time in Italy, nobody trusted the church and the Communist Party, under Enrico Berlinguer, was held in high regard.

[old man emu]

1 hour ago, Jerry_Atrick said:

Your assertion is that this will be the case, but how do you know until laws are ennacted? What is your evidence?

What I said came from the idle musings of a cynical mind. There's no evidence; no law, just application of experience. What authority ever admits its opponents to the decision-making process?

[Bruce Tuncks]

I reckon it is completely reasonable for a person deciding how to vote to be influenced by the method of appointing people to the voice.

[Bruce Tuncks]

Having grown up surrounded by Aborigines I respectfully have to disagree with you jerry. In no way were they ever a "nation" and I never heard of them being so described until lately. 

Apparently, there was a nation in the Mississippi valley in the US, but by the time the first settlers arrived they were reduced to a remnant population which could put only a dozen or so braves into a fight instead of thousands. It was smallpox which did this, and the whites had no idea that it had happened.

I dunno if something similar happened here in Australia, but I don't think so.

Yes, trade did take place, as did communication. Apparently Stuart found that the Aborigines near Katherine called his rifles "musquats" even though these had not been used for over a hundred  years since the first fleet.

If there were not some interaction between tribes, they would have suffered more from inbreeding than they actually did. 

[nomadpete]

10 hours ago, Jerry_Atrick said:

There is nothing in the constitution that requires transparency of anything the government does, that I am aware of, anyway.

Of course  not. My point is that the only hope I have is that the ensuing legislation DOES write in a requirement of transparency.

[Bruce Tuncks]

AND, OME, I had no idea you had any more powers than the rest of us. I reckon you have been doing a great job....  keep it up please.

As far as the Aborigines are concerned, I reckon they have a few good things in their culture and lots of bad things. Things like towns and cities and supermarkets and money are all whitefeller things and I for one don't want them given away for nothing much, just to satisfy some politically-correct fat white ladies who I suspect are more interested in sabotaging our society than they are in uplifting the Abos.

I return to trachoma, and note that nobody has replied about this. Yet health is one of the "equality" demands!

[old man emu]

51 minutes ago, Bruce Tuncks said:

I reckon they have a few good things in their culture and lots of bad things.

We are fools if we do not put a great effort into studying the foodstuffs and medicinal products used by original inhabitants of all countries. To say that all knowledge has been gained only by Europeans since a base year of 1600 AD (European dating system) is the height of ignorance. Mankind has survived in a variety of niches for 200,000 years by discovering what the Land produces that is useful and what is harmful. We should come down off our high horses and talk to the locals.

 

58 minutes ago, Bruce Tuncks said:

I return to trachoma, and note that nobody has replied about this. Yet health is one of the "equality" demands!

Good health is the very foundation of societal sustainability. From that you get the chance to benefit from education. Take a look at this sign, which has been on QANTAS Drive, Sydney Airport for a number of years. (Click to enlarge)

Imagine the outcry if the wording was changed to 'If 80% of Sydney kids suffered trachoma'.

 

Aborigines in remote areas don't want the Empire of the Voice, they want equality in health services and basic education.

[Marty_d]

I think people are overthinking this.

 

This article helps explain exactly what you're voting on.

 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-09-03/voice-referendum-vote-on-92-words-stay-out-of-weeds/102800166

[old man emu]

A very good, easy to understand exposition of the intended insertion. Let's look at the wording.

 

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

i. there shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice;

ii. 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;

iii. 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.

 

Comments:

Item i.   Simply sets up something and gives it a name. We could argue the meaning of "body". Here's what it means in this context: "A body is an organized group of people who deal with something officially. And "Voice" here means "an expression of opinion, or the right to express an opinion".  

 

Move along. Nothing to see here.

 

Item ii. 

(a)   The critical word in the whole sentence is the word "may", which has a long-established legal meaning. In LEGISLATION ACT 2001 - SECT 146 (1), "may" used in relation to a function indicates that the function may be exercised or not exercised, at discretion. Function is defined in the dictionary, of the Act to include authority, duty and power. In combination with "make", it is used to express the granting of a permission. 

 

(b)   The Item defines the limit of the permission. The body, known as the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, only has permission to make representations about a limited range of matters, which can only be matters relating to persons Aboriginal or Torres Strait ethnicity.

 

Move along. Nothing to see here.

 

Item iii. This Item grants the Parliament a power to make the laws under which Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice will operate. Laws come through two things, the Act, and the Regulation to the Act. Basically, an Act sets out the principles and goals of the legislation of a matter, and the Regulation sets out how those principles and goals will be achieved. 

 

If the Referendum returns a YES result, then the government will have to go through the standard procedures to have an Act drawn up, debated and passed. Based on what is politicians have been saying, and the expressed attitudes of those politicians, the passing of an Act dealing with the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice is going to look make a soccer hooligan clash look like a debutante ball. And neither you nor I will not have a Voice in the creation of the Act. We never have, and never will. Were you asked to contribute to the wording of the principles and goals of the Barbed Wire Entanglement Act?

 

HOWEVER, having gone over the wording of the amendment as I prepared this post, I have got a clearer understanding of its proposal. I think I've changed my stance and now can see that my support of it will not result in Armageddon, the Second Coming, Solar Supernova, or Life, but not as we know it, Jim.

[Old Koreelah]

5 hours ago, Bruce Tuncks said:

Having grown up surrounded by Aborigines I respectfully have to disagree with you jerry. In no way were they ever a "nation" and I never heard of them being so described until lately. 

I totally agree, Bruce. 

5 hours ago, Bruce Tuncks said:

Apparently, there was a nation in the Mississippi valley in the US, but by the time the first settlers arrived they were reduced to a remnant population which could put only a dozen or so braves into a fight instead of thousands. It was smallpox which did this, and the whites had no idea that it had happened.

I dunno if something similar happened here in Australia, but I don't think so.

Much the same thing happened in this country; the first white explorers in the Riverina expressed surprise at how few people they encountered.
A generation before, in about 1797, an epidemic of smallpox started in the new colony and quickly swept through indig communities, killing a large percentage of those who contracted it.

5 hours ago, Bruce Tuncks said:

Yes, trade did take place, as did communication. Apparently Stuart found that the Aborigines near Katherine called his rifles "musquats" even though these had not been used for over a hundred  years since the first fleet.

The trade routes pre-1788 were extensive and spanned much of the continent, bringing Asian artifacts and influences. A recent study of feral cat genetics indicates that Asia DNA predominates north of about Alice.

5 hours ago, Bruce Tuncks said:

If there were not some interaction between tribes, they would have suffered more from inbreeding than they actually did. 

That applies all over the planet. Decades ago, one study of the very complex skin system in Western Desert peoples claimed it could ensure genetic integrity in a population of 50- a feat that the would have require the best computerised breeding program at the time.

[Jerry_Atrick]

19 hours ago, old man emu said:

What I said came from the idle musings of a cynical mind. There's no evidence; no law, just application of experience. What authority ever admits its opponents to the decision-making process?

I am not disputing it, however, the act that establishes the body will no doubt include a section on the structure and apppointments to the senior positions. This is common for most if not all types of bodies in the public service. They are designed to be impartial, but in reality, there are always front runners for the role. Let's look at the AAT - virtually all LNP stooges in the end to thbe point where impartial representatives were terminated to make way. Even governor generals are appointed with some degree of bias and these are far more important constitutional appoitnments than an advisory board.

 

Even if they are yes people, what are the board goign to say "Yes" to? I can't see too many ministers being personally affected by matters involving first nations issues. So they are going to be saying, "Yes, we will provide consultation to matters affecting aboriginals." Isn't that what it is for? OK, maybe some government insider wants their newphew's company to get some cushy government job or contract - or their son to get membership to the Chairman's lounge, but in other government institutions, the constitution stops it, right?

 

10 hours ago, Bruce Tuncks said:

Having grown up surrounded by Aborigines I respectfully have to disagree with you jerry. In no way were they ever a "nation" and I never heard of them being so described until lately. 

 

5 hours ago, Old Koreelah said:

I totally agree, Bruce. 

Wow! I didn't know you fellas were over 300 years old. I doff my hat to you.

 

Fair dunkum.. With respect, I think I will take archological, anthropologicla, and historicla studies over anecdotal experiecnes. And, when you were kids growing up, I would suggest there was 150+ years, say 5 generations at 30 years/generation of oppression, segregation, isolation, exploitation (happy to get the booze and drugs to them), and not only institutional, nut national racism.. But, your childhopod memory defines whether or not there were nations up to 1000's of years ago..

 

And the rest about population sizes after white man arrived and killed or spread disease and killed has what to do with it, I am not sure - that because a society that had never neen exposed to these dieseases contracts them and dies of in large numbers was never a nation?  An interbreeding? What the hell has that got to do with anything? What, you havve never seem a mixed race couple before - a Greek marry and Italian, an Enlgish marry a French? Suddenly they are no longer countries?

 

Buit then again, what that has to doi with the Voice, I am not so certain.

[spacesailor]

Never mind .

IF it s a NO vote , we can have another referendum later . '' Dutton '' .

spacesailor

[Jerry_Atrick]

11 hours ago, old man emu said:

HOWEVER, having gone over the wording of the amendment as I prepared this post, I have got a clearer understanding of its proposal. I think I've changed my stance and now can see that my support of it will not result in Armageddon, the Second Coming, Solar Supernova, or Life, but not as we know it, Jim.

This just goes to show how crap at campaigning Albanese is.. because the wording has been out since July and people still don't know there is wording. Also shows how crap I am in that I assume people have read everything; Octave posted the wording on here way back on July 21...

 

 

Edited September 4, 2023 by Jerry_Atrick

[old man emu]

I mulled over Item iii and realised that the establishment of The Voice in no way alters the existing powers the parliament has to make laws specifically relating to A&TSI people. The parliament already has those powers. All Item iii does is to give the parliament power to make laws about the body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice.

 

Everything that proponents have been saying that this amendment to the Constitution being essential is pure flimflam perpetrated against us by our elected officials at the behest of an apologetic Middle Class when it says that it will improve conditions for A&TSI people. A stiff broom swept through the existing bureaucracy would be more effective. 

 

Is it any wonder that one's decision on how to respond to the referendum question goes from one side of the fence to the other on a daily basis? 

[Bruce Tuncks]

I object to the thought that the voice is restricted to racial lines, yet there is nothing to stop pseudo-blacks from being appointed. Yep, appointed because of the difficulty in legally defining who is indigenous and who not. So some people who are more than 50% white will be declared blacks for the purpose of the voice.

I will be amazed if this gets up....  mind you, I have a history of being wrong.