Further Effects of "The Voice" debate

[nomadpete]

1 hour ago, octave said:

Although these countries still have their problems it is hard to find a country that has as poor outcomes as we do.

I do not believe that the poor outcomes are due to lack of voice. I believe it it mostly due to corruption. At a number of levels.

 

I do not think the proposed change to constitution is likely to do much harm.

 

But I can not see the voice improving things for the remote area dwellers that I have met. It is a simplistic attempt to fix a complex multifaceted set of problems.

[octave]

13 minutes ago, nomadpete said:

I do not think the proposed change to constitution is likely to do much harm.

 

That being so it seems like a low-risk gamble. If there is a 5% chance of some kind of improvement and little risk of negative consequences then why not?

 

If the voice does not lead to any improvement then "no " voters and others will have the luxury of being able to say "We put you in the driver's seat and you did not improve anything, there is nothing more we can do"

 

Internationally we can also say to countries critical of us that we tried our best.

 

A question,  If after a couple of years, the South Australian voice starts to improve things would you change your mind?

  

[nomadpete]

My answer is yes. But with the proviso - an improvement  of 5% that you consider a "worthy success" would not meet my criteria for success  because it would mean that 95% failure to direct efforts in a meaningful way.

[octave]

1 minute ago, nomadpete said:

an improvement  of 5% that you consider a "worthy success" would not meet my criteria for success  because it would mean that 95% failure to direct efforts in a meaningful way.

I did not say an improvement of 5% I said a 5% chance of improvement.   The odds of some good being done not the amount of good being done. 

[spacesailor]

NO GOOD 

For 90% of the country . Is no good at all .

Lots of Bueacrats in Lots of departments are spending LOTS of money .

Do we actually need more of thei same , ( enshrined in our constitution) .

Has any referendum ever been appealed after a win .

WA are having their DA applications knocked back , but it's only a state .

spacesailor

[Jerry_Atrick]

You beat me to it, @octave: https://www.sbs.com.au/nitv/article/deeply-hurtful-this-no-campaigner-labelled-the-stolen-generation-as-mistruth/lbruqnqnk

 

 

There are populations who will always vote away from their interests, for whatever reason. UK voted Brexit; and are now looking at removing guarantees to their human rights.

 

Australia voted in SFM and Abo.

 

US voted in Trump..

 

None seem to be in the interest of the vast majority who voted them in.

 

Edited September 29, 2023 by Jerry_Atrick

[Marty_d]

17 minutes ago, Jerry_Atrick said:

...None seem to be in the interest of the vast majority who voted them in.

 

While I agree that none of those terrible choices were in most peoples best interest, I would definitely not call the majority that voted them in "vast".

[Jerry_Atrick]

3 hours ago, nomadpete said:

I do not believe that the poor outcomes are due to lack of voice. I believe it it mostly due to corruption. At a number of levels.

 

But I can not see the voice improving things for the remote area dwellers that I have met. It is a simplistic attempt to fix a complex multifaceted set of problems.

On what basis can you see a vote for yes not improving things? All a vote for yes does is to insert into the constituion the need for the governement to ensure a Voice is instituted.  It does not mandate howe it is to be implemented, which will determine how effective - or otherwise it will be. It isn't a simplistic approach to fixing things; it is an attempt to ensure that ATSI have a voice in how those things (problems) are fixed.. It can't fix things itself.

 

Re the corruption - the planned implementation is to make it within terms of reference of the NACC. But what are they going to be corrupt at? Recommending paying their mates. It does not make it automatically a fait accompli - the deparment with decision making power have to make that decision. The opportunity for corruption of the voice in the  current government's current principles of their implementation (which can be changed at any time), would be to squander any budget for research. And the NACC (and statutory auditor) will have powers to investigate. Now, I do have criticicms of the NACC, but as has been pointed out to me here, it is better than what was before.

 

FWIW, my opinion (and that is all it is) differs to yours in that I think it provides an better opportunity  - not guarantee - to improve things because it will be the community that will be reperesetned under a constitutional body to advise on the improvements - and whatever ways the government or departments want to go, they know they will be dealing with some representation, or an advisory body mandated by the poeple of Australia. This would provide a powerful argument to minimise political interference such as went on with the ATSIC Commission. But, I do concede, it is not a silver bullet - nothing is - yet everyone is voting as they expect it to be.

 

 

1 hour ago, spacesailor said:

NO GOOD 

For 90% of the country . Is no good at all .

Lots of Bueacrats in Lots of departments are spending LOTS of money .

Do we actually need more of thei same , ( enshrined in our constitution) .

Has any referendum ever been appealed after a win .

WA are having their DA applications knocked back , but it's only a state .

spacesailor

So, you know how much the Voice is going to cost, and how many people it will be employing, and that most will be bureaucrats and not representatives? Care to share any links, or do you have the inside track?

 

And of the departments spending lots of money - do you not realise that they are given budgets every year and spend it regardless? When I worked for the public servie in Aus, towards June, management would ask us to find ways of spending money or we would have our budgets reduced the next year. Not a great way of managing spend, but there you go. They will get their money and spend it regardless of the Voice.

 

To try and make it clear to you, the question is do you want ATSI representation about decisions that affect them enshrined in the constitution. That is it.. You may or may not want to; that is fine; Make your deicion, but please don't base it on false facts, or grandiose statements - like bad outcomes without being able to name them.

 

And yes, no referendum has been repealed.. But, if the government decided tomorrow it didn't want armed forces, it could legislate dismiss the armed forces en masse and to have an emu, echnidna, and wombat as the head of the army, navy, and airforce. And the High Court could not stop them (the military may have other ideas, but that would be called a coup)

Edited September 29, 2023 by Jerry_Atrick

[nomadpete]

6 hours ago, Jerry_Atrick said:

On what basis can you see a vote for yes not improving things?

Once again, I stress this is just my opinion, based on close personal observation at the remote area communities, and the obvious gap between government expenditure and the people at the bottom of the food chain.

 

I base my opinion on the fact that the proposed new voice is no more than just a new voice to  add to a long list of obviously failed voices.

 

Why would I think that another designated advisory body will be different?

 

The definition of insanity is repeatedly doing the same thing and expecting a different result. Or words to that effect.

 

The previous failures were due to endemic corruption, as are a lot of failures of our other government aims. See the anti corruption thread.

The new voice is just an excuse to carry on as before.

 

 

Edited September 29, 2023 by nomadpete

[old man emu]

Loathe as I am to quote from the MSN news feed, I find this story somewhat indicative of the divisions that occur amongst the Aboriginal people themselves.

https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/framlingham-s-aboriginal-community-a-snapshot-of-the-voice-division/ar-AA1hpCBL?ocid=wispr&pc=u477&cvid=d76f09db377449c88e8c80b9df4f2851&ei=66

 

From it:

The Aboriginal community at Framlingham in south-west Victoria has long been divided along family lines. The Framlingham community exists on the site of the former Aboriginal reserve and mission, which the community was given ownership of in 1971. Cousins Len Clarke and Geoff Clark have been figureheads in the community since then and represent the two factions.

 

Geoff Clark describes himself as "a progressive no" voter in the referendum. A more controversial figure than his cousin, Geoff was the head of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC) just prior to it being shut down by the Howard government in 2005.

 

Geoff's time as administrator of the Framlingham Aboriginal Trust has also been fraught. Next month he will stand trial to face hundreds of fraud charges relating to his alleged role in the misappropriation of about $2 million from the trust. But Geoff has long maintained his innocence, and sees the charges as part of a wider systemic oppression of Indigenous people; a mindset that has helped fuel his opposition to the Voice to Parliament.

 

It's that spectre of misappropriation of money that unsettles people. Most taxpayers do not object to tax dollars being allocated to benefit those in need. The objection is raised when the flow of those dollars to benefit the needy slows due to the log jam caused by the unscrupulous. And it's not money directed towards improving things for Aborigines. The National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) is being rorted alarmingly. Perhaps we should grant massive punitive powers to the Auditor General and demand that every dollar of taxpayer expenditure is rigidly accounted for.

 

It is unusual that when this matter of misappropriation is raised, no one considers the mastodon in the background - the use of the money many communities are getting from royalties and rents from mineral exploitation. The sums involved should have those traditional owners living lives with the best of everything from their own and White cultures.

[Old Koreelah]

A Better Way - a speech by Kerry White

 

I am a Narungga leader and Native Title holder.

 

The Aboriginal elder quoted by Onetrack sure deserves to be heard; her opinions are based on valid experiences in the Indig community.

But- others who spent their working lives in the same environment have  different ideas.

 

She seems to belong to that group of people who have “pulled themselves up by their bootstraps” - shaken off their disadvantages by sheer hard work.

I know several people in this category; some are family members, others friends. One thing they tend to lack is empathy for those who could not rise above the same humble beginnings. Like stereotypical right wingers, their mantra seems to be: “if I could do it, they should be able to!”

[facthunter]

When something is corrupted it doesn't prove the idea was no good. Corruption happens when you let it.  Nev

[octave]

I don't see that between the adviser and the advisee, there is much room for corruption.  I suspect that corruption is more likely to occur in the implementation rather than in the act of providing advice that can be accepted or rejected by the government of the day.  Corruption and misappropriation are common in most areas of government.   There are people who hide their income in order to get an aged pension that they are not entitled to but we ought to work on fixing those problems rather than abolishing the aged pension.

[old man emu]

52 minutes ago, octave said:

I suspect that corruption is more likely to occur in the implementation rather than in the act of providing advice that can be accepted or rejected by the government of the day. 

Or, in other words, "talk is cheap", but I agree with your point. It's once the dollars start flowing that the log jams and evaporation occurs.

[facthunter]

IF you left money around, eventually the cleaning lady might be tempted. Doesn't mean all cleaning ladies will steal or that ALL should be tarred with the one brush. Also aborigines are expected  culturally to share with their Kin and give them money or jobs, regardless of their abilities to do them. .It's branded Nepotism in normal circumstances  and certainly NOT the best way to run a business Nev

Edited September 30, 2023 by facthunter

[nomadpete]

5 hours ago, facthunter said:

IF you left money around, eventually the cleaning lady might be tempted. Doesn't mean all cleaning ladies will steal or that ALL should be tarred with the one brush. Also aborigines are expected  culturally to share with their Kin and give them money or jobs, regardless of their abilities to do them. .It's branded Nepotism in normal circumstances  and certainly NOT the best way to run a business Nev

And that is a system that worked well for  thousands  of years for nomadic tribes.

No damn good  in the 20th century though.

[spacesailor]

The voice ! , Has cost $ 364.6 millions,  already .

Not ONE CENT  to help the poor anywhere. ! .

They could have provided " FREE " DIABETIC NEEDLES .

They could have done a hundred other things with $ THREE HUNDRED MILLION .

DID ONE , Aboriginal OR  Tores Strait Islander get ONE CENT to help them .

Just " big noteing themselves " .

That's my take,  on this  " divisive referendum " .

spacesailor

 

[spacesailor]

Octave 

Those " pensioners " hiding their income .

IF  a pensioners goes over their ' income limit ' by ' one dollar ' they will autocraticly  loose that " pissss poor pension . 

Then have to reapply over three weeks ! , without the PPPENSION. 

I and my children have run foul of those ' well paid bureaucratics ' .

So much easier to loose a ' payday or two than fight " city hall .

We don't get a medal IF we are too honest. 

spacesailor

[octave]

41 minutes ago, spacesailor said:

Octave 

Those " pensioners " hiding their income .

IF  a pensioners goes over their ' income limit ' by ' one dollar ' they will autocraticly  loose that " pissss poor pension . 

Then have to reapply over three weeks ! , without the PPPENSION. 

I and my children have run foul of those ' well paid bureaucratics ' .

So much easier to loose a ' payday or two than fight " city hall .

We don't get a medal IF we are too honest. 

spacesailor

 

Firstly it was just an example of saying  "Unless it is perfect, don't do it", and secondly, there are some very wealthy people who have businesses that on paper make a loss. This qualifies them for things like low-income health care cards.   I seem to remember a news story about how many seemingly wealthy people are actually getting low-income healthcare cards because their businesses appear to make little profit.    We know this is also true of the wealthy folk paying little tax because they claim to make little profit.   

 

In terms of the aged pension, there are ways and means.   Yes, ‘millionaires’ can qualify for the age pension

 

By the way as an aged pensioner, you can earn a reasonable amount. under the work bonus system.

 

https://www.dss.gov.au/seniors/programmes-services/work-bonus#:~:text=From 1 July 2023%2C the,the maximum rate of pension.

 

The Work Bonus increases the amount an eligible pensioner can earn from work before it affects their pension rate. The first $300 of fortnightly income from work is not counted under the pension income test.

The Work Bonus operates in addition to the pension income free area. From 1 July 2023, the pension income free area is $204 a fortnight for single pensioners, and for couples combined, it is $360 a fortnight. This means a single pensioner over Age Pension age with no other private income could earn up to $504 a fortnight from work and still receive the maximum rate of pension.

 

Edited October 1, 2023 by octave

[Bruce Tuncks]

Back to the topic, about the voice referendum....  I reckon we should apply whitefellow rules to things which only exist because of whitefellow work.

Their culture should restrict itself to blackfellow things if they wish to use blackfellow rules, like sharing everything. The sharing idea, applied to whitefellow things, makes nonsense of the whole thing. ( I have tried unsuccessfully to think of an example of a blackfellow thing ) The Nepotism thing sums  it up quite well...  nepotism is seen as a cultural imperative by blacks, and as a crime by whites. Now you can't have both at once. The job should go to the best candidate, regardless of his kinship

or the color of his ( or her ) skin..

SO, despite the bad company here on the NO side of the fence, I am intending to vote that way.

Edited October 1, 2023 by Bruce Tuncks

[facthunter]

What about white fella damage environmentally, white fella junk food and alcohol supplied by white fellas's for Profit without consideration of it's bad effects. The disgusting condition of the Macarthur River as a good example?   Nev

[Jerry_Atrick]

Respectfully:

On 29/09/2023 at 9:34 PM, nomadpete said:

The new voice is just an excuse to carry on as before.

I disagree because the fact that, should it get up, the majority of Australians and the maljority of the majority of states will send a clear message they want it to work... and that will have some sway in the minds of the pollies who will be tasked to make it work. If the Yes vote was to miraculously get up, the MSM, which is unf, is beholden to corporate rather than humanity interests, will initially have its attention drawn to the next set of developments until their marketers deem ATSI affairs as not generatintg enough eyebealls interested to sell advertising.

 

So, at least in the early stages, it will generate a lot of interest and people will be looking for change.. But once the hype is over and done with, the MSM will eother conceal or diminish any newsworthy stories, but at least those who fight for the little bloke will be able to leverage the fact it got over the line because the majority of Australians wanted it.

 

On 29/09/2023 at 9:34 PM, nomadpete said:

The definition of insanity is repeatedly doing the same thing and expecting a different result. Or words to that effect.

I agree with the statement and have used it many times here.. but until we know how it will be implemented in the normal legal process of making laws, how can we make such a determination it will be the same way it has been done in the past? As I mentioned above, a Yes vote is likely to generate a lot of MSM attention - good and bad - so change will be front and centre. Again, I suggest you look up the principles (https://voice.gov.au/about-voice/voice-principles), which do seem to take into account previous failings to a degree, as this will give an idea of how the initial implementation, which, by the way, is not in the constitution, will work with this government - and if found to nto be working or there is room for improvement, the government can make changes without having to go back to a referendum. This is the normal process of making laws that implement constitutional powers.

 

On 29/09/2023 at 9:34 PM, nomadpete said:

I base my opinion on the fact that the proposed new voice is no more than just a new voice to  add to a long list of obviously failed voices.

I don't want to disparage your opinion, but the referendum is is only ensuring there is an ATSI representative body that may be consulted on ATSI matters (only). Your opinion is more aligned to the implementation of what the constution requires will fail. It may.. as may everything else the government legislates on. But like everything esle, the government can refine it to make it work. That takes political will.

[Jerry_Atrick]

2 hours ago, Bruce Tuncks said:

Back to the topic, about the voice referendum....  I reckon we should apply whitefellow rules to things which only exist because of whitefellow work.

Their culture should restrict itself to blackfellow things if they wish to use blackfellow rules, like sharing everything. The sharing idea, applied to whitefellow things, makes nonsense of the whole thing. ( I have tried unsuccessfully to think of an example of a blackfellow thing ) The Nepotism thing sums  it up quite well...  nepotism is seen as a cultural imperative by blacks, and as a crime by whites. Now you can't have both at once. The job should go to the best candidate, regardless of his kinship

or the color of his ( or her ) skin..

SO, despite the bad company here on the NO side of the fence, I am intending to vote that way.

I agree, Bruce.., Back to topic. The question of whether ATSIs should be able to use whiteflla's advancements when practicing blackfella's culture is not the issue here. The issue about the voice is trying to resolve the issues ATSIs have living in a whitefella's world. We all think they are layabout bludgers who are on metho 24x7. How do we fix that is the purpose of the voice - not whether they can use a tinnie and speargun to get turtles. 

 

While I agree that when practicing their traditional rites and rights in ATSI cultiure, they probably should be restricted to treaditional ways, they still have to integtate with wider society and this is where we have been abhorrently culpable (as a society, not individually) of not facilitating that bit a long time ago. And it is that bit which is what the Voice is about. Jeez, if the US can be better at it than us, with their parlous human rights records, then surely we can improve.

Edited October 1, 2023 by Jerry_Atrick

[Bruce Tuncks]

Let's take white fella grog... yes it does a lot of harm, and I reckon it does more harm than with whites for 2 big reasons: firstly, whites have had the stuff much longer and so they are not as susceptible to it as blacks are and, secondly, the aboriginal culture thing about sharing means that it is more available than it should be. Personally, I would use a "basics card" to pay welfare and have it not available for grog.

I didn't know about the Macarthur river, is that the new mine SE of Darwin?

As for junk food, the worst of it should not be available on a basics card just as for grog. I bet these reforms would be fought against by the voice lot.

[Bruce Tuncks]

The worst ingredient in junk food is sugar. It is the one thing that those who know have been advocating for years to have it taxed more. Will the voice add to or subtract from this clamor to tax sugar a lot more?