Jump to content

Further Effects of "The Voice" debate

old man emu

By old man emu
in Politics

 Share

Recommended Posts

nomadpete Grand Master

nomadpete

Posted
Posted

We (Spacey and I] are suggesting that the voice Is/will be incidental to the well being of the general indigenous Australians.

 

We agree that the actual departments involved are failing to provide meaningful assistance to the needy.

 

Also, there has been a long history of indigenous advice to the government, to no avail.

 

Why do you think this new advisory avenue will cure the 'problem'?

  • Like 1
  • Replies 915
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

old man emu
old man emu

If there is one thing that can be said for the debate about "The Voice to Parliament" is that it has brought Aboriginal culture and even knowledge to the fore. More non-Aboriginal people are intereste

nomadpete
nomadpete

Old K, I appreciate you sharing your experience. In my case, my views are developed from my grandmother's considerable personal experience (she had learned a lot in her youth) and she had no know

Marty_d
Marty_d

For me, this is exactly the same as the same-sex marriage debate.   Does it affect me?  No, not in the slightest. Could it make life better for someone else?  Yes, it possibly will.

Posted Images

nomadpete Grand Master

nomadpete

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, Jerry_Atrick said:

Sadly, I am not so sure your assertion that large private corporations are as quick to turnaround as you think.

Equally sadly, my experience leads me to agree here. It was intended as a sarcastic counterview.

But with the genuine belief that the voice may have little effect toward cleaning up the operational system.

  • Like 1
octave Veteran

octave

Posted
Posted

So today I had to drive from Geelong to the airport to pick up my wife who has spent the week interstate (tonight should be a big night).   Whilst driving along the Princes Freeway there was a truck parked on the side of the roadwith a billboard spruiking the no vote.  I would really have loved to stop and photographed it but alas it was not possible. 

 

It was hard to take the whole sign in at once. I think the first sentence said that 80% of traditional didn't want the "Voice"  The second sentence stated that "they will take your land". This is pure scare tactic BS. 

 

 

 

 

  • Agree 1
  • Informative 1
  • Sad 1
octave Veteran

octave

Posted
Posted

I was interested to see who the supporters of the yes and no case were.  The no-case supporters are not really my people.   

 

"No" campaign[edit]

Lead lobby groups[edit]

  • Australians for Unity, created on 11 May 2023 and led by Warren Mundine and Jacinta Nampijinpa Price. This is a merger of two key former campaigns:[107]
    • Recognise a Better Way, led by Warren Mundine and including former Nationals deputy PM John Anderson, and former Keating government minister Gary Johns.[1] The campaign, launched in January 2023, was set up by a group called the Voice No Case Committee. They argue that the Voice is "the wrong way to recognise Aboriginal people or help Aboriginal Australians in need", and is "racially discriminatory". The committee included four Indigenous members: Mundine; Jacinta Nampijinpa Price (who left the group in February 2023 to join Advance[1]); founder of the Northern Territory Kings Cross Station Ian Conway; and Bob Liddle, owner of Kemara enterprises. It proposes a different plan.[108][109]
    • Fair Australia is a No campaign led by Jacinta Nampijinpa Price under the auspices of Advance, which emerged during the 2019 election, attacking activist group GetUp!, supporting Tony Abbott against the independent Zali Steggall (who won the seat), and campaigning against David Pocock.[1]

Notable individuals[edit]

Politicians[edit]

Federal[edit]

170px-Tony_Abbott_-_2010.jpg Former Prime Minister Tony Abbott 170px-Jacinta_Nampijinpa_Price_at_CPAC_launch.jpg Senator Jacinta Price

State and territory[edit]

Former Prime Ministers[edit]

  • Scott Morrison, 30th Prime Minister of Australia (2018-2022) and former Liberal MP for Cook [160]
  • Tony Abbott, 28th Prime Minister of Australia (2013–2015) and former Liberal MP for Warringah[161][162][163]
  • John Howard, 25th Prime Minister of Australia (1996-2007) and former Liberal MP for Bennelong [164]

Political parties[edit]

Federal[edit]

State and territory[edit]

Religious organisations and leaders[edit]

 

  • Like 1
  • Informative 1
  • Sad 1
Jerry_Atrick Grand Master

Jerry_Atrick

Posted
Posted (edited)

Sorry - missed the sarcasm bit - electronic comms, eh?

 

1 hour ago, nomadpete said:

Why do you think this new advisory avenue will cure the 'problem'?

In all honesty, I can't say it will cure "the problem", whatever the definition of the cure is relative to the problem. But there is nothing in the constitution that guarantees the government will cure anything or do anything properly. Robotdebt is a great example. Section 51 (xxiiA) of the constitution gives the power of the federal government to legislate on various provisions of welfare payments. Yet the whole premise of the implementation of Robodebt was illegal in the end, and founded on a myth that there was widespread fraud of the welfare system. (Particularly unemployment benefits). The government had the power to legislate to change the law to make it legal but it opted not to and instead ran a sham that ultimately cost lives.  Hardly curing a problem, I would contest.

 

What the Voice does do is ensure that there is a ABTSI representation body that must be consulted and that the government can't do what they did to the ATSIC commission of defunding it, letting it descend into chaos as a result and declare it a failure. And, while the constitution does not guarantee that any government will do more than fund a bare skeleton, just like Robodebt, where the government were too scared to change the law due to the political pressure, they would have brought upon themselves, it would be a brave government that would water it down if the majority of the Australian public had voted to enshrine it in the constitution.

 

Why would it have a better chance than previous organisations? To be honest, I don't know how the other previous organisations were composed, so I can't be sure. But here is how I see it helping to achieve the best outcomes for ATSI people based on the government's described implementation:

  • The representatives are to be selected from the various communities by the various communities. They are not appointed by a government or board. And as they only have advisory powers and not decisive powers, they are more likely to be representative of their people than of self-interest. Therefore, they own the advice given, and the communities are likely to own it, too on the basis of the next point.
  • They will be given research resources, which would imply if they are giving advice, they may well be asked to back it up by the research of it within their communities. If the advice doesn't meet the research, or the research is deemed as inadequate, then they will suffer reputational damage and with the transparency provisions, erode their standing in both their and the wider Australian community.
  • The government (parliament and the executive) are compelled to seek the advice. If the advice is well researched and reasonable, then it would be a brave government that would defy that advice. This would mean programs are likely to be implemented taking the advice, so if it is bad advice and doesn't solve the problems (in a relative sense), then ATSI people effectively only have themselves to blame. This would further strengthen the buy on of that implementation. Of course, if the government neglects to follow the advice and implements a program differently, then the government can pay the price.
  • The transparency and accountability provisions would hopefully keep people on their toes.

Of course, no system is perfect and the above is not guaranteed, but it seems that people want perfection and guarantees in this case which, given we are only human, is absurd. The reality is that the laws that implement something in the constitution are tweaked or overhauled over time to (hopefully) resolve issues or keep whatever it is relevant

 

The big issue I can see in the above is that, as it is representative of a diverse community, there will be the ATSI equivalent of factional fighting amongst the representatives. But that assumes that in any one area, there can only be one policy for all different communities. That does not have to be the case. Culturally, what will work in one community may not, and it may be up to government to be culturally sensitive to different communities in order to achieve a desired outcome.

 

It was long, but that is the way I think the current proposed principles of the Voice implementation may work better than previous attempts.

Edited by Jerry_Atrick
  • Like 1
old man emu Grand Master

old man emu

Posted
  • Author
Posted
1 hour ago, Jerry_Atrick said:

They are accepted by the [Aboriginal/TSI] community in which they live [as being Aboriginal/TSI]

That is the only criterion by which a person can correctly be identified as being a member of a group. We already do it in so many ways. Christian or Muslim/Hindu/Sikh/ etc., etc. How about Man U or Man City? Australian or American?

 

I believe that criterion is the one that fair dinkum Aborigines are crying out to be policed to get rid of the box-tickers.

Jerry_Atrick Grand Master

Jerry_Atrick

Posted
Posted (edited)

There are three criteria in this case, which should ally the fear of the suspicious and cynical - they are descendants, they identify, and they are accepted by their community. I beleive religious gropus go by two.. the person idenifies as and is accepted. The acceptance as is usually marked by some ritual of conversion, such as baptism  (note, I am not sure in the case of Islam and some orthodox judaism - I think they require ancestry specifically of the mother being of the religion).

 

Edited by Jerry_Atrick
old man emu Grand Master

old man emu

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Definitely a genetic link to Aboriginality is required in this particular case. It is essentially why this group has the problems it does have trying to survive as an equal in an organised system which is composed of several similar, but distinguishable groups.

 

I doubt if there is a religious group that does not welcome all who want identify as a member and by living according to the group's "rules", be accepted by others in the group, regardless of the cultural or genetic ancestry of the member.

 

 

  • Like 1
Jerry_Atrick Grand Master

Jerry_Atrick

Posted
Posted (edited)

Maybe I was mixing up without conversion what determines a religion. However, from Wikipedia: "With the notable exception of some Syrian Jewish communities (primarily the Brooklyn, New York and Deal, New Jersey communities), all mainstream forms of Judaism today are open to sincere converts" (their bold, not mine)

 

And Muslims allow conversion into but not out of their religion.

Edited by Jerry_Atrick
  • Like 1
  • Informative 1
Marty_d Grand Master

Marty_d

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, octave said:

I was interested to see who the supporters of the yes and no case were.  The no-case supporters are not really my people.   

 

"No" campaign[edit]

Lead lobby groups[edit]

  • Australians for Unity, created on 11 May 2023 and led by Warren Mundine and Jacinta Nampijinpa Price. This is a merger of two key former campaigns:[107]
    • Recognise a Better Way, led by Warren Mundine and including former Nationals deputy PM John Anderson, and former Keating government minister Gary Johns.[1] The campaign, launched in January 2023, was set up by a group called the Voice No Case Committee. They argue that the Voice is "the wrong way to recognise Aboriginal people or help Aboriginal Australians in need", and is "racially discriminatory". The committee included four Indigenous members: Mundine; Jacinta Nampijinpa Price (who left the group in February 2023 to join Advance[1]); founder of the Northern Territory Kings Cross Station Ian Conway; and Bob Liddle, owner of Kemara enterprises. It proposes a different plan.[108][109]
    • Fair Australia is a No campaign led by Jacinta Nampijinpa Price under the auspices of Advance, which emerged during the 2019 election, attacking activist group GetUp!, supporting Tony Abbott against the independent Zali Steggall (who won the seat), and campaigning against David Pocock.[1]

Notable individuals[edit]

Politicians[edit]

Federal[edit]

170px-Tony_Abbott_-_2010.jpg Former Prime Minister Tony Abbott 170px-Jacinta_Nampijinpa_Price_at_CPAC_launch.jpg Senator Jacinta Price

State and territory[edit]

Former Prime Ministers[edit]

  • Scott Morrison, 30th Prime Minister of Australia (2018-2022) and former Liberal MP for Cook [160]
  • Tony Abbott, 28th Prime Minister of Australia (2013–2015) and former Liberal MP for Warringah[161][162][163]
  • John Howard, 25th Prime Minister of Australia (1996-2007) and former Liberal MP for Bennelong [164]

Political parties[edit]

Federal[edit]

State and territory[edit]

Religious organisations and leaders[edit]

 

Yup, one look at that list confirms in my mind that if they're against it, it must be good.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
nomadpete Grand Master

nomadpete

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, nomadpete said:

Octave you have blown my arguments away.

One look at your list of 'No' proponents is enough to make me vote 'YES!'

 

JUST TO NARK THEM.

But I still think the 'voice' is all BS. (Classic trd polishing.)

old man emu Grand Master

old man emu

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Making a decision on which way to vote on this question is the hardest decision my democratic right has imposed on me.

 

On the one hand, I see the need for a section of the population to be positively involved in government decisions that directly affect the members of that section. Not that such involvement seems to be available universally to all sections of the community. On the other hand, the exposition of the toxic culture of politicians over the past 20 years makes me want to refuse to give them any more powers.

 

The debate has highlighted so many failures from the top to manage its roles in the governance of the country for the good of the People. These failures include inappropriate programmes and failure to ensure that money directed toward reaching programme goals is not misappropriated.

 

It is a fact that this area of governance is broken. It is a fact that the majority of the People are sympathetic to the idea of fixing what is broken. But is what is being proposed in this referendum nothing more that an apparently attractive distraction?

 

As the young Danish prince was wont to utter, "Aye, there's the rub".

  • Like 2
facthunter Grand Master

facthunter

Posted
Posted

What's so dramatic about giving a group more say in matters concerning THEM.? Those who seek to confuse and divide have no good intentions. I'd not like to identify myself with most of the group listed in any way. Mundine is after M Payne's senate seat.  Nev

  • Agree 1
nomadpete Grand Master

nomadpete

Posted
Posted
5 hours ago, old man emu said:

Making a decision on which way to vote on this question is the hardest decision my democratic right has imposed on me.

 

On the one hand, I see the need for a section of the population to be positively involved in government decisions that directly affect the members of that section. Not that such involvement seems to be available universally to all sections of the community. On the other hand, the exposition of the toxic culture of politicians over the past 20 years makes me want to refuse to give them any more powers.

 

The debate has highlighted so many failures from the top to manage its roles in the governance of the country for the good of the People. These failures include inappropriate programmes and failure to ensure that money directed toward reaching programme goals is not misappropriated.

 

It is a fact that this area of governance is broken. It is a fact that the majority of the People are sympathetic to the idea of fixing what is broken. But is what is being proposed in this referendum nothing more that an apparently attractive distraction?

 

As the young Danish prince was wont to utter, "Aye, there's the rub".

 

Well summarised, OME.

 

Jerry, in answer to your question......

 

I have no problem with mentioning the indigenous people in the constitution.

 

I strongly support grass roots assistance to disadvantaged groups.

 

I have seen government assistance (money or policy) misdirected by 'middle men' of whatever colour, to their own benefit at the expense of those most in need.

 

I am not satisfied that the proposed voice will, of itself,  do anything to clean up the corrupted system.

 

Unless all benefit organisations and related government agencies are closely scrutinised, the voice will only succeed in placing new heads over the existing failed structure.

 

There is historic manipulation of opinion frequently distorting the reality of life in many indigenous communities. I have been in communities when they hear of a news crew coming to show a situation. And see how the handle that. And when there is an election. And talked to individuals. And been in some homes (replacing broken telephones). I have seen those 'employed' by mining companies (rorted bribes). Worked alongside some. Been abused or assulted by some.  In combination my experience forms my background of a bigger picture. It is not as the media portray it.

  • Like 1
  • Winner 1
nomadpete Grand Master

nomadpete

Posted
Posted

Basically in my view, although the 'voice' is a fine ideal, my belief is that it is highly likely to be (ab)used as a smoke screen by those who are skilled at working the system. It will placate the well intentioned dogooders for a while, but meanwhile it is unlikely to deliver results at the grass roots.

 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Old Koreelah Grand Master

Old Koreelah

Posted
Posted
19 hours ago, nomadpete said:

…there has been a long history of indigenous advice to the government, to no avail.

Exactly; because governments don’t tend to take much notice.
Who do governments listen to?
Well-funded lobbyists for foreign corporations sure get their ear.
Advisory groups and even Royal Commissions have often been given little more than lip service.

That’s why we need an advisory body that cannot be dismantled at the whim of government, as Howard did to ATSIC. 

  • Like 2
willedoo Grand Master

willedoo

Posted
Posted

It would probably take a miracle to fix the system so that it could deliver good outcomes at the grass roots level. They've been trying for decades now and have failed overall. The problem is so large and diverse, it's a bit like juggling cats. The DAA was a top heavy failure. ATSIC was prone to corruption and nepotism which marginalised a lot of the smaller, more needy groups. Accountability was a big problem in it's day. And then there's the land councils, some of  who can also have the same negative issues when it comes to delivering for the little people. It's a multi layered and complicated thing and in my view it's over simplifying things to lay most of the blame at the feet of government for not listening. The people that really suffer are the remote, traditional people. They just keep getting kicked around like a football by all of the above or their successors.

  • Like 2
willedoo Grand Master

willedoo

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, facthunter said:

The current situation is IMHO worse that it was when I was working on farms as a teenager picking fruit. The young Un's are out of control.  Nev

I can remember when grog was the only problem, but hard drugs changed things in a big way. The same could be said for white society as well, but in the Aboriginal communities there's an ever increasing disconnect with the elders.

  • Agree 3
  • Informative 1
pmccarthy Mentor

pmccarthy

Posted
Posted (edited)

I drove through Coonamble today and it is in a sad state, so many empty shop fronts. I made a joke about the meaning of Coonamble and then had to look up the actual meaning. Believe it or not, it is Kamilaroi for big heap of shit. Ok you blokes won’t believe me, so here is the Wikipedia entry: The name for the town is taken from the Gamilaraay word guna (faeces) and -bil (having much).[2]

Edited by pmccarthy
  • Informative 2
spacesailor Grand Master

spacesailor

Posted
Posted

A SIMPLE CHOICE! .

To vote No gives another ' go ' at a later date,  with better transparency. 

To vote ' Yes ' , is final. It means no future discussions on whether we ' could '  have done it better.

spacesailor

  • Informative 1

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...