Further Effects of "The Voice" debate

[old man emu]

Isn't it a sad indictment on our political system that we see the need to enact truth in political advertising laws! Is it little wonder that politicians have traded places with the old time used car salesman and travelling medicine show man to reach the very deep bottom of the trustworthiness barrel?

[spacesailor]

Lots of Negative bites on my post. 

But I agree that ATO Are a Nasty Dictatorship .

  And the only ' tme ' you Are guilty. ! until you prove your Innocence. 

 

But that " National Indigenous Australians Agency " Is part of our government. 

And there are over " 100 Indigenous Agencies " . ( according to Google) .

 

I also agree " All ' profits ' made in Australia Should be taxed at the same rate a " working " person Is taxed .

 

But to divide the Native Australians from the rest of the population IS wrong .

I repeat    " It it wrong to divide a population ".

spacesailor 

[facthunter]

Who is exploiting the dividing aspect Most? Minerals council gets plenty of access.  Labor ARE attempting to tax overseas Co's profits. Under the Coalition PwC  Sabotaged that thoroughly.   It's not been OK when white MEN just decide what's BEST for the Aboriginals  as is mostly the case up till now . When HOWARD says "Maintain the RAGE" Is that helpful? Nev

[Old Koreelah]

58 minutes ago, Bruce Tuncks said:

Misinformation? I reckon the "yes " side has come up with a lot of that.

Their case has been fact-checked.

58 minutes ago, Bruce Tuncks said:

Like how we should be ashamed of the "stolen generation".I never even heard about the stolen generation until recent years…

Bruce much of the ugly truth was kept from us, but our relatively priviledged lifestyle depended to some extent upon it. Even as a spotty youth, I saw it happen. Gentle old black folk would give up their place in the queue if a white person- even a kid- came in.

My cousins’ Granny spoke with the accent cultivated in the Cootamundra Girls Home, where stolen indig. girls were re-educated to become dutiful servants and wives for white fellas.

[onetrack]

It wasn't Howard who said, "Maintain the Rage" - it was Gough Whitlam, expressing his rage over his dismissal.

[octave]

7 minutes ago, onetrack said:

It wasn't Howard who said, "Maintain the Rage" - it was Gough Whitlam, expressing his rage over his dismissal.

Originally said by Whitlam but also said recently by Howard

 

John Howard encourages ‘No’ voters to ‘maintain the rage’ against the Voice

[nomadpete]

2 hours ago, facthunter said:

when white MEN just decide what's BEST for the Aboriginals  as is mostly the case up till now

For the most part, I think this has happened because the 'white men' you mention, represent the democratic majority  of the population. I believe that is how democracy works?

 

Please acknowledge  that in spite of various biases, with the current constitution, the money  distribution (I think that is what you are referencing), is made after various indigenous 'interest groups or lobby groups' have voiced their advice to the decision makers.

 

The new voice, in itself, is not like allowing a indigenous vote (or special power) in the party room. It is worded to have no more control than existing voices. So until new legislation is passed to set up the framework, everything will just continue - business as usual. No need for any rage.

Edited September 17, 2023 by nomadpete

[facthunter]

Sorry Pete I can't agree with any of your take on that. I'm not referencing the amount of money or advocating RAGE. That was J Howard recently who incidentally dis mantled the ATSIC back in  time and refers to not accepting the BLACK ARMBAND point of view of history  constantly.. The place was inhabited when England declared it Terra Nullius.. Stolen generations is also  with a bit of hype. A lot of well intentioned people were involved in that and people of any race may have their kids made wards of the State. The progressive way is to consult with the People who are not being administered well. The "Remote area' dwellers seem to be the most difficult.  No one living there can expect what would be available at Redfern or Sunshine.  Nev

[old man emu]

Does anyone remember the Constitution Alteration (Preamble) 1999 , a Bill for an Act to alter the Constitution to insert a preamble?

 

The proposed wording of the preamble was: 

 

With hope in God, the Commonwealth of Australia is constituted as a democracy with a federal system of government to serve the common good.

We the Australian people commit ourselves to this Constitution:

proud that our national unity has been forged by Australians from many ancestries;

never forgetting the sacrifices of all who defended our country and our liberty in time of war;

upholding freedom, tolerance, individual dignity and the rule of law;

honouring Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders, the nation's first people, for their deep kinship with their lands and for their ancient and continuing cultures which enrich the life of our country;

recognising the nation-building contribution of generations of immigrants;

mindful of our responsibility to protect our unique natural environment;

supportive of achievement as well as equality of opportunity for all;

and valuing independence as dearly as the national spirit which binds us together in both adversity and success.

 

 Effect of preamble The Constitution is altered by inserting after section 125 the following section:

125A Effect of preamble

The preamble to this Constitution has no legal force and shall not be considered in interpreting this Constitution or the law in force in the Commonwealth or any part of the Commonwealth.

 

In the referendum the NO vote was overwhelming. No doubt this was due to its being the second question asked on the day. The other question was whether we should become a republic. It doesn't take more than two brain cells to figure that the republic question was uppermost in people's minds, and that the preamble question was an annoying distraction.

 

I wonder if this Bill had been revived this year if there would be no arguments. I reckon it is much greater than the current preamble in reflecting what 21st Century Australians want to tell the rest of the World.

 

WHEREAS the people of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Queensland, and Tasmania, humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God, have agreed to unite in one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and under the Constitution hereby established:

                   And whereas it is expedient to provide for the admission into the Commonwealth of other Australasian Colonies and possessions of the Queen:

                   Be it therefore enacted by the Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:--

[Jerry_Atrick]

Multiquote incoming 🙂

On 16/09/2023 at 9:21 AM, nomadpete said:

There seems to be no coherent and believable motive behind the questionable 'no' argument. That is what makes me suspect there is a motive that they would rather not explain. I can think of several believable 'no' arguments that they don't use. But instead they use debunkable BS. Is it possible that they actually want the 'yes' to win but don't want to be seen to agree with anything Labor says?

 

So I am torn - I cannot see any great long tem benefit materialising from the 'voice'. It is unlikely to achieve it's  claimed goals.

 

But I am more concerned by possible hidden agendas behind the 'no' campaign.

In my (not so) humble opinion, in answer to the first question, yes! Frankilin D Roosevelt quoted that "In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way".  Dutton himself has recently come out to say if he were elected then he would hold the same referendum, so that indicates he is weponising it against Labor rather than acting in good faith.. Regardles of Labor playing down the personal cost in the polls to Albanese, it has been portrayed as his baby as he was the champion of it politically in terms of the referendum. A No vote will be a big victory for the LNP in their fight back to government., BTW, I witnessed this with Brexit where it was a long time building and the David Cameron government appeared to be implementing policies designed to engender distrust and despisement (if that is a word) of the EU long before a referendum discussion even took place. By the time the referendum took place, there was a lmajority already calling for Brexcit to their own detriment. Cameron, as the head of the remain campaign seemed to do everything in his power to scuttlebut against it. And it got up. Ironically, he allowed teh referendum to save his premiership from the Brexiteers of the Conservatives, but he resigned the next day.

 

I get the point about the potential for no great long term benefit arising from The Voice (as it is termed in the Uluru statement of the Heart). But I have said it before and said it again - there is no statement in the constitution that guarantees anything - or more accurately, there is no statement in the constitution that says the government has to meet a minimum standard in anything it implements. The normal process is the open and transparent law making (which is different the procedures the law allows to be held in secret - all law making is open and transparent - if you look hard enough). Democracy doesn't end at the ballot box, and if parliament or a deparment implement a law that is unsatisfactory, you can all pile in.

 

11 hours ago, nomadpete said:

Sorry but not everything. In recent decades indigenous groups have served as advisors to parliament. Yes their 'voices' have failed.  If the new 'voice' is not backed up by transparent anticorruption laws and fair public information,  it too will fail to close the gaps.

 

So far I cannot see the anticorruption laws having any teeth, nor any hints of proposed legislation that is essential to make the voice work.

OK, not everytthing, but certainly the vast majority. My view is that ATSI representation is enshrined in the constitution, then there is pressure to maintain an adequate if not effective level of representation, and also it does somewhat insulate against poltically watering it down. But, I am happy that is my view and others have a different one, which I fully respect.

 

Re the NACC, it does have teeth, but by going for default hearings in secret, it waters down the accountability of when those teeth choose to chomp and when  they don't. BTW, I absolutely oppose secret hearings being the default.  In terms of the proposed legislation for thge Voice, it is probably not framed yet, but the principles give you a taste of how the Albanese government will implement it: https://voice.gov.au/about-voice/voice-principles

 

 

6 hours ago, Bruce Tuncks said:

Misinformation? I reckon the "yes " side has come up with a lot of that. Like how we should be ashamed of the "stolen generation".

I never even heard about the stolen generation until recent years, and I certainly would have known all about them as a kid if there were any around Alice Springs in the 1950's.

With due respect Bruce, just because you haven't heard of it until recently, doesn't mean it didn't happen. I did Aussie history at HSC and the Aboriginal efforts and sacrifices in wars for Australia was taught, but somehow the stolen generation was left of the syllabus... I wonder why?

 

BTW, in 2008, the Australian government issued a formal apology to the ATSIs, especially for the stolen generation - you know the apoloigy that Peter Dutton walked out on (and has only recently apologised for):  https://www.nma.gov.au/defining-moments/resources/national-apology

 

4 hours ago, old man emu said:

Isn't it a sad indictment on our political system that we see the need to enact truth in political advertising laws! Is it little wonder that politicians have traded places with the old time used car salesman and travelling medicine show man to reach the very deep bottom of the trustworthiness barrel?

Indeed.. Another great opportunity for Albo to show leadership and adopt the bill (with any amendments he and his party thought required to ameliorate any unintended consequences), but, like his counterpart, sadly lacking in morals. Of course, he was probably thinking of the tirade the largely anti-Labor MSM would have launched that could actually be more damaging toi Australia than the white lies they all tell us at election time. And, who believes pollies, anyway (except when it fits their agenda)?

 

 

4 hours ago, spacesailor said:

Lots of Negative bites on my post. 

But I agree that ATO Are a Nasty Dictatorship .

  And the only ' tme ' you Are guilty. ! until you prove your Innocence. 

 

But that " National Indigenous Australians Agency " Is part of our government. 

And there are over " 100 Indigenous Agencies " . ( according to Google) .

 

I also agree " All ' profits ' made in Australia Should be taxed at the same rate a " working " person Is taxed .

 

But to divide the Native Australians from the rest of the population IS wrong .

I repeat    " It it wrong to divide a population ".

spacesailor 

I don't quite understand all of this post, but, ahen you say agencies, do you mean funded by the government, or do you mean independent organisations, which are also called lobby or pressure groups? And are you saying at the federal level or state included. I think you will find many more such  "agencies" of other segments of society. But to your last point, can you pls explain how the voice "divides Native Australians from the rest of the population"?

 

2 hours ago, nomadpete said:

For the most part, I think this has happened because the 'white men' you mention, represent the democratic majority  of the population. I believe that is how democracy works?

 

Please acknowledge  that in spite of various biases, with the current constitution, the money  distribution (I think that is what you are referencing), is made after various indigenous 'interest groups or lobby groups' have voiced their advice to the decision makers.

 

The new voice, in itself, is not like allowing a indigenous vote (or special power) in the party room. It is worded to have no more control than existing voices. So until new legislation is passed to set up the framework, everything will just continue - business as usual. No need for any rage.

I agree with this post; democracy works be ensuring represntation of decision making. However, the Voice is about consultation and not decision making, and there has been an abject failure for whatever reasons of decision making around ATSI matters. And good decision making usually involves consultation of affected people the decisions are being made for.

In addition, for some reason, ATSI affairs seems to be victim of political weaponisation, as we are seeing from the No case (if they were being honest with their arguments, fair enough, but they are being deceitfully disingenous). Again, for some reason, large domestic and foreign multi-nationals seem to have a very good ear of government (of both pursuasions) when decisions are to be made, that ultimately cost Australians billions. Yet, ATSI coinsultations are there, but don't always get the same credence accorded to them, The Voice is being weaponised as something that is going to destroy the fabric of Australia (well, if it destroyed the fabic of Australia that seems to accept corporate welfare, I would be all for it).

 

 

Edited September 17, 2023 by Jerry_Atrick

[spacesailor]

Well if there's No current ' useful ' functioning " Aboriginal Agencies. 

Sack these ' useless ' .

 

National Indigenous Australians Agency .

Community Services : Aboriginal And Torres Strait Island ( ACT ) .

NSW Aboriginal Affairs  .

Northern Territory  : Office of Aboriginal Affairs. 

Queensland : Aboriginal And Torres Strait islanders peoples .

South Australia  : Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation .

Not working don't pay them ! .

spacesailor

[Jerry_Atrick]

All but one of those are non-federal. Have no idea what sort of job they are doing or what their remit is.. The referendum is about making sure there is an ATSI representative body at federal level.. That is it...

 

35 minutes ago, spacesailor said:

Not working don't pay them ! .

What about the public servants or other government funded agencies? A lot of stuff they do doesn't work... Why single out one section only?

[nomadpete]

2 hours ago, old man emu said:

I wonder if this Bill had been revived this year if there would be no arguments.

I did suggest this half a zillion posts back.

 

3 hours ago, facthunter said:

The progressive way is to consult with the People who are not being administered well. The "Remote area' dwellers seem to be the most difficult. 

Nev, I just voiced my opinion. I have met and talked with various representatives of various indigenous groups in  my travels, they were out in the remote communities. They were of indigenous  descent. They were advising governments. They were visiting remote communities. They were sincere. That is why I say there already is/has been consultation with isolated indigenous people. Also, in my past I have researched indigenous  housing projects and trials - I found that often there was a high level of successful  involvement with the end users (I call that progressive). Some great ideas/proposals were rejected  by governments because if implemented,  the policy would be seen as discriminatory when viewed through city voters tinted glasses. Resulting in actual provision of housing totally unfit for purpose.

 

In my experience although I have seen some real dropkicks (of all shades of suntan), there has been numerous examples of progressive consultation. In itself, good advice - a good voice between needy and the government, has rarely resulted in good outcomes.

 

There are already 'voices' so I don't see how another voice will change things much.

[nomadpete]

6 minutes ago, Jerry_Atrick said:

What about the public servants or other government funded agencies? A lot of stuff they do doesn't work... Why single out one section only?

Great idea. It is well known that Bureaucracies tend to be self perpetuating.

 

But Jerry, let's not start reforming all government departments at once. Good idea, though.

[nomadpete]

2 hours ago, Jerry_Atrick said:

for some reason, large domestic and foreign multi-nationals seem to have a very good ear of government (of both pursuasions) when decisions are to be made, that ultimately cost Australians billions. Yet, ATSI coinsultations are there, but don't always get the same credence accorded to them,

The reason is obvious.....

 

There is no money in anything related to  the common man (person?). It's not a race issue - ask any pensioner.

 

Oh, and there aren't enough votes in it to matter.

 

There - that's two reasons.

[Jerry_Atrick]

Agree.. wasn't trying to say it was on racial grounds - but not enough votes or money in it.

 

But for some reason, a lot of the voters are worried about the perceived bias the Voice may create, when they don't seem to care of the real bias to corporate welfare which costs the voters so much more than any bias that a Voice may result in.

 

 

Edited September 17, 2023 by Jerry_Atrick

[nomadpete]

I'M not ignoring the other unfair corporate voices to government. Unf they are not open to debate by the masses. If we had a referendum on banning fossil fuel lobby groups or offshoring corporateprofits, we could do something about it. The fact their voice to government is so effective does not mean the indigenous one will be.

[spacesailor]

I did say " government " .

The fact that the first group out of the ' hundred ' I read of were state  ! , MEANS I should have kept writing ALL that list Aboriginal departments & agencies. 

 

ONE MORE to bite me ! .

 

If that vote Is for " Australian Citizens " .

HOW MANY ABORIGINAL'S HAVE TAKEN ' THE CITIZENSHIP OATH .

 

I Know my Great Grandchildren haven't , 

spacesailor

 

[Jerry_Atrick]

Spacey - are you saying Aboriginals are immigrants? Do other non-immigrants have to take the oath? Seriously, you are clutching at straws...

 

 

5 hours ago, nomadpete said:

I'M not ignoring the other unfair corporate voices to government. Unf they are not open to debate by the masses. If we had a referendum on banning fossil fuel lobby groups or offshoring corporateprofits, we could do something about it. The fact their voice to government is so effective does not mean the indigenous one will be.

I wasn't suggesting you, personally.. but the general population - it doesn't seem to be high on their agenda. And, yes, the people can debate it, or let themselves be heard.  The previous government wer anti-EVs, anti-renewables, etc, while the fossil fuel giants were sponsoring them.. But, as they realised that were losing votes and were likely to lose big time, they tried to turn the ship around by announcing incentives to get renewables and otehr ecologically friendly things off the ground and they were going to get over 700K EVs on the road?  If the population make it clear they are going to get booted out, it will change them no matter what. Problem for the Libs was they ran their and the NP's ship aground before they started trying to turn it around.

 

And no, I agree, there is nothing at all to suggest that the voice will be as effective as the large corporate lobbying.. well.. unless the Voice start advertising big with Murdoch outlets and donating to Labor, Libs and/or Nats big time.. Then I bet, their message will be heard loud and clear.

Edited September 17, 2023 by Jerry_Atrick

[facthunter]

You people as pilots would surely prefer a system where your input was listened to more. U/L pilots are a minority  RAAus can't upset  the system as it depends on sucking to CASA etc . Can't you see the comparison?   Look at the fate of most aerodromes as an example?. You all reckon it's only catering for the BIG BOYS and you'd be right.. WE need a VOICE.  Nev

[spacesailor]

Declining ' airports ' and excessive population. 

Why are  309,996 Ausralian births in 2021 so hard to " house " . That we are ' Screaming ' about 

This " housing shortage " .

It must be a government " properganda " , 

 As only 35 thousand , three bed houses are needed .

Is there enough room on those surplus airport land ( fuel prices to high to fly ) ,

to build those so needed houses .

Posted ' tongue in cheek ' .

I refused to comply the the " motorcycle helmet " law. When it was Instigated, so will never get that licence. 

I can't get a pilot licence so I will not fly .

Laws are made to be broken or ignored ! .

spacesailor

 

[onetrack]

Nev's right! We need a VOICE for Pilots! Plus a VOICE for Truckdrivers! Plus a VOICE for under-recognised and under-appreciated Road Workers, especially the Lolly-Pop sign holders!

Every single under-represented mob in the Nation should have a specific VOICE, so they can be heard, and their opinions assume a much larger impact, than the current state of just VOICES in the WILDERNESS! 

[nomadpete]

14 minutes ago, onetrack said:

Nev's right! We need a VOICE for Pilots! Plus a VOICE for Truckdrivers! Plus a VOICE for under-recognised and under-appreciated Road Workers, especially the Lolly-Pop sign holders!

Every single under-represented mob in the Nation should have a specific VOICE, so they can be heard, and their opinions assume a much larger impact, than the current state of just VOICES in the WILDERNESS! 

I think someone already  invented  something that does all that.

 

I think they called it a democratic government.

[facthunter]

Doesn't help minorities. You need a sense of fairness Justice and integrity and It's not any good if misinformation prevails.. People who get kickbacks will vote for corruption continuing.. Nev

[Bruce Tuncks]

I have to admit that my "no" vote has its roots in the feeling that aborigines already get a lot of largess from the government.

In Alice Springs, they already are free to break the law. I know a person who is leaving her job and town because she feels unsafe from aboriginal violence.

I have said this before, but in year 4/5 I sat next to Walter, a quite black kid from Borroloola. We were good mates, and there is NO WAY that stolen kids were around us at that time. We would have known all about them including their names. This is not to say that stolen kids didn't occur elsewhere in Australia. I can imagine a bully of a cop in Qld, for example, actually stealing kids.

But I wonder if they were truly stolen, for example a sister-in-law was a Darwin cop. Once, she had to go to an aboriginal  house where there was a dehydrated infant lying in 3 days of its shit. What would you do? If you were well-trained, you might call an ambulance for the kid, which is what happened. The ambulance carted the kid off, we guess to hospital. NOW.... was this kid stolen or not?  I reckon there are some who would have you believe that the kid was stolen. ( the mother was told all about everything at the time, but she couldn't be raised to consciousness)

Anyway, this story comes from later in life. In the 1950's me and Walter sure never heard of anything similar, and I reckon we would have known all about it. ( Incidentally, Walter went home to Borrolloola for holidays. He thought he was at boarding-school.)