Further Effects of "The Voice" debate

[facthunter]

If "nicer" people who you'd like as a neighbour say something, isn't THAT more "trustable" than people who have little regard for the truth and instead try to CONFUSE things and make ALBO suffer politically?. IF this fails how  could you  disregard the behaviour of people like LITTLE (to be) PROUD of And SKY?.. Nev

[Jerry_Atrick]

Oh! I didn't realise SKY was not a satirical take on the news...

[willedoo]

30 minutes ago, Jerry_Atrick said:

Oh! I didn't realise SKY was not a satirical take on the news...

You could be forgiven for thinking it was meant to be a malevolent version of the Betoota Advocate. 

[willedoo]

People always mention Sky presenters by name. If you say 'that nutcase presenter on Sky', nobody knows which one you are talking about.

[Bruce Tuncks]

I have seen cattle stations , handed to abos, become shamefully neglected and money-losers. I have seen businesses in Alice Springs remain successful in abo ownership but whiteys running the place. 

On what evidence can you say that they, the abos, have not been given a chance? I reckon they have been given every chance but they don't have a work ethic and I don't see how a yes vote in a referendum would help in any way.

Octave and me are a bit like the religious vs the atheists. We are both wanting the other side to provide proof. Personally, I reckon the onus lies on the "yes" vote to give me a single good example of how this referendum will help at all.  

 

[Bruce Tuncks]

I can give an example how a "no" vote might help....   I reckon that the future might contain less of the nonsense things the " abo " lobby of fat rich white ladies has subjected us to, like banning rock climbing in the grampians.

[Jerry_Atrick]

The Voice isn't another handout - it is the establishment of a representative body to consult on policy affecting Aboriginals.  But your examples are the reason why one is needed; the handouts don't appear to work and need something else - so consult with the people who are affected to ensure the resources provided have the best chance of meeting the outcome. Otherwise, Einstein’s definition of insanity - repeatedly doing the same thing and expecting different results will prevail.

 

To draw a parallel - if a kid walked up to you and said "I want to be a pilot but don't have the resources", and you handed the keys to a plane to him and said "here ya go!", would you expect the plane and the kid to come back in one piece?

 

Same with running businesses or anything else. And it isn’t an Aboriginal only thing either.. Many grants are handed out to startups with the support of mentors, etc, and they also fail. So, it's not only desirable, but vital a Voice is consulted to try and get the best from our tax dollar in achieving the outcomes for Aboriginals that our tax dollars will be spent on. And because of the history with previous ATSI representative bodies, especially when the LNP disingenously denied them resources to allow them to fail (and yes, there was one instance where there was some corruption - but let's look at all the other corruption to keep things in context), enshrining in the constitution such a representative body seems the best option.

Edited July 22, 2023 by Jerry_Atrick

[Old Koreelah]

2 hours ago, Bruce Tuncks said:

I have seen cattle stations , handed to abos, become shamefully neglected and money-losers.

Bruce there are plenty of examples of that, but also plenty of white fellas have mismanaged what they have been given. 

I’m a bit cynical about some of these pastoral handbacks. What training had they been given in preparation for running these stations? I believe some of these runs had never been successful when experienced white fellas were in charge. I suspect they were set up to fail.

 

It reminds me of the Soldier Settlement scheme, when diggers who had survived The Great War were given a little parcel of land to farm. Some made a go of it, but many never had a hope, with little experience on too-small blocks of marginal land that the clever squatters had avoided. 

[facthunter]

Respectfully I wouldn't run the comparo with those heartbreaking Soldier settlements.  Nev

[spacesailor]

Another ' NO ' .

Example: before " Ayers Rock " was Given to the natives , .

White's were happily climbing all over it , with dollars rolling in , to help with upgrading amenities.  

Now super expensive to " look " at it , & NO climbing at all .

Thanks for Nothing ! .

CAN'T CLIMB  a rock & Can't plant tree's .

What will that Voice ' STOP ' next .

No tourist on Gkari Island . No fishing the Barrier Reef .

( the Western Australian law is here as I couldn't find the initial )

"  spectator.com.au/ 2023/07/Aboriginal-heritage-law-and-the-voice-rowan-dean-was-right/  " .

spacesailor

[Jerry_Atrick]

I think you are conflating the Voice v. handouts, or, in the case of Uluru, land rights.  They occurred without the Voice and are results of people standing up for their rights, taking it to court, and the court applying the law to identify the declaratopn of terra nullius to be defective and essentially null and void; in the whitey legal system according to whitey laws. No Voice needed for that.

 

The voice will not consult on land rights claims - there is already a process on that.. it will consult on policies and yes - proposed new laws and law reforms. It is only consultative. No doubt, any proposal will still be debated in parliament, senate committees, etc.

 

BTW, I got a 404 error when using the link above.

 

 

 

 

Edited July 22, 2023 by Jerry_Atrick

[nomadpete]

On 21/07/2023 at 5:03 PM, octave said:

Those who are against on this forum have been pretty lame at providing a strong no-case argument. 

Octave, I am offended by this remark. Name calling convinces nobody.

 

I clearly stated my reasons for disliking the 'voice'. Then I left.

 

Let me summarise.

 

I oppose this 'voice', mostly because I have not seen any evidence of it solving the disconnect between the people in need, and the policy makers in federal government.

I believe this voice will worsen the situation at the grass roots.

 

My answer would be to go through the present bureaucratic system like a dose of salts and make it more effective.

 

As I see it a 'voice' will only place a new head overlooking the same old failing bureaucrats.

A voice will relieve a lot of guilty consciences without fixing anything.

And saying 'oh well I'll vote for it because I can't see it doing any harm', is vacuous.

 

Now, I'll leave you to your echo chamber.

[Jerry_Atrick]

22 minutes ago, nomadpete said:

As I see it a 'voice' will only place a new head overlooking the same old failing bureaucrats.

It doesn't have supervisory powers, only consultative powers. Therefore it is the pollies, senate committees, parliamentary inquiries, and royal commissions that oversee or try to hold bureaucrats to account. However, the pollies and bureaucrats have to consult the Voice on policies/laws directly affecting Aboriginals (in the narrow sense - not the wider community). If the voice proffers an opinion that differs markedly from the proposals, then this will be made public and will bear pressure on the pollies and bureaucrats in the sense of transparency. So, while there is no supervisory powers, at least where there is a conflict of ideas, this will be aired and will at least give pollies and senior bureaucrats pause for thought.

 

22 minutes ago, nomadpete said:

A voice will relieve a lot of guilty consciences without fixing anything.

I think quite the opposite. If the Voice is not consulted or there is a transparent exchange of conflicting ideas it will, in so far as senior/executive public servants and pollies aren't social/psychopaths, potentially embarrass and possibly leave them and others with a guilty conscience (of course, except where votes are deemed gettable at the cost of doing the right thing).

 

22 minutes ago, nomadpete said:

And saying 'oh well I'll vote for it because I can't see it doing any harm', is vacuous.

In the context, it won't do harm, but ut may do good I think is the argument, so on balance, I would say it is not vacuous. However, I guess there can be a try-before-you-buy clause.

 

BTW - cut the normally genteel Octave some slack - Wolfie's mates were around 😉

 

Edited July 22, 2023 by Jerry_Atrick

[Bruce Tuncks]

I would like it if the Voice were charged with the responsibility of finding answers to difficult questions ( such as "how do we provide real employment in the tribal lands") but there is zero evidence that it will work like this.

I reckon it would just give increased power to the negative things like stopping whities from climbing rocks.

So, regretfully, and not liking the bad company, I am still voting "no".

[octave]

1 hour ago, nomadpete said:

Octave, I am offended by this remark. Name calling convinces nobody.

 

 

 

That was not intended to be name-calling but rather a critique of the general "no" case being put everywhere.    The usual complaint in politics is that it is the left who are offended by everything. The actual wording of the question and the constitutional implications are rarely discussed.  

 

Far from being in an "echo chamber" I do read a hell of a lot of information from both sides. Yesterday I trawled through the "no" case from the Australian Christian Lobby and I still could not find anything substantial other than the usual "if you do not understand it then don't vote for it" or "it will be divisive" etc.   If I wanted to be in an echo chamber I would not be here discussing it with you.

 

 

To me, the government imposing things will never work as well without input from the people it affects.  It may even happen that an advisory body may recommend measures that are far more dramatic than anything the government would decree. 

 

This is probably a little paternalistic but when raising children, at some stage when things are not going well, instead of laying down the law you bring them into the decision-making process. 

 

I doubt that anyone here will change anyone's mind and that is not my intention but I do think that both sides should try to understand the concerns of the other. It is all too easy (for both sides) to rely on vague anecdotes or fear.   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited July 22, 2023 by octave

[old man emu]

Consider this. Already the Whites have divided the country into Local Government Areas and set up consultative bodies called "Councils". These Councils have the function of providing a number of services to the people within those LGAs. Those services are funded in part by contributions from the people living there (Rates and Charges), and by Grants from State and Federal Treasuries. 

 

The things that a local Council will deal with are things that are brought to its attention by the people living in the LGA, as well as universal things that are common to all LGAs (roads, libraries, waste control etc.) Let me give you an example from my experience that you can empathise with.

 

Tooraweenah Aerodrome is typical of aerodromes owned by LGAs. It has been there for years after being established as part of an airline network. After the airline ceased operating, the aerodrome began to deteriorate as post-WWII aviation declined. An aerodrome that once sported three runways went to two runways and now has only one operational runway. The land surrounding the disused runways is leased out for agricultural production.

 

The Council continued to maintain the runway, but without much enthusiasm. A year or so ago, interest in the aerodrome's importance to local history and potential for providing an economic boost to the village economy was aroused within the community. Long, short: as a result the Council has taken a greater interest in putting time and money into supporting the locals' desires.

 

Where does this apply to the Voice and attending to the needs and desires of people living in areas their families have done for aeons? Clearly the needs of the people living around Uluru are different from those living in Central Victoria or the Illawarra coast of NSW? 

 

My opinion is similar to Nomadpete's in that it is the White bureaucracy that needs to be picked up by the neck and given a good shaking until the dead wood and empire builders are dislodged. Only after that has been done can local people be given the tools to identify and deal with those things that relevant to them, and which would improve their lives. 

 

Hasn't this method of group decision making process been the standard practice in Aboriginal culture from ages past?

 

Just as an aside, as I was writing this I heard in an ABC news bulletin that it has been reported that aboriginal health services organised locally have produced better result in improving Aboriginal health that the Federal or State funded services. Doesn't that suggest that central control isn't the best way to deal with dispersed problems?

[octave]

4 minutes ago, old man emu said:

Hasn't this method of group decision making process been the standard practice in Aboriginal culture from ages past?

 

This is not a decision-making body but an advisory body. The advice can be rejected

 

5 minutes ago, old man emu said:

Doesn't that suggest that central control isn't the best way to deal with dispersed problems?

.

Again, not "central control" but a method of consultation.    

[old man emu]

You missed my point. I'm advocating the establishment of local "advisory" bodies which would provide the advice to bureaucracy as to the the specific requirements of the people in that local area. The bureaucracy would then facilitate whatever was required to fulfil those requirements.

 

Isn't the Federal Government presently trying to tackle runaway consultancy fees? If these local advisory bodies were created, the consultancy fees are already being paid in the form of social service benefits. 

 

Basically what I am saying is that the bureaucracy already exists. The problem is that has divorced itself from the communities it was established to serve. It's broke, so fix it. 

 

I see the constitutional amendment as flimflam that isn't the fix that is required.

 

Maybe a shake up of the bureaucracy dealing with Aboriginal affairs would put the fear of retribution into other sections of the government bureaucracy.

[octave]

OME,  I don't necessarily agree but I appreciate your post.   You are offering alternatives rather than just the status quo.   

[Bruce Tuncks]

A glaring problem with OME's idea ( which I like ) is the precedent of consultancy fees. Millions will be transferred to fat white ladies who are "legal" aborigines. This happens now of course.

If only a "work for the dole" scheme could establish such advisory bodies without millions of fees being handed out, then it should be supported.

[facthunter]

PAST "work for the dole"schemes weren't shining successes People were exposed to risks that were not covered and other oversights. These sorts of things get  exploited by spiv's.  Nev

[red750]

If it doesn't have supervisory or veto powers it's a miillion dollar lame duck.

 

There are and have been aboriginal members of parliament and forner national president of the ALP who have had an opportunity to be the voice, and are recommending a No vote. Good enough for me.

[Old Koreelah]

17 minutes ago, red750 said:

If it doesn't have supervisory or veto powers it's a miillion dollar lame duck.

 

There are and have been aboriginal members of parliament and forner national president of the ALP who have had an opportunity to be the voice, and are recommending a No vote. Good enough for me.

Those examples are not valid arguements against the Voice. We all know how political parties bend people to their way of thinking. Potential candidates often perform political gymnastics to get preselected. Once elected, they are under enormous pressure to toe the party line, often against the interests of people they are supposed to represent.
 

What we really should be doing (as OME has, above) is coming up with positive alternatives. There are heaps of success stories about progress made by our indig people, but how often does the media tell us those stories?

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

1 hour ago, Bruce Tuncks said:

A glaring problem with OME's idea ( which I like ) is the precedent of consultancy fees. Millions will be transferred to fat white ladies who are "legal" aborigines. This happens now of course.

If only a "work for the dole" scheme could establish such advisory bodies without millions of fees being handed out, then it should be supported.

Bruce you may well be riight, but at least the money would be wasted in our country. Where is the outrage against the LNP over the billions they wasted on utterly corrupt foreign consultants?

[onetrack]

Well, I've been a little too tired at night recently to reply on a major level to Octaves raging come-on, for the "No" arguments on Friday night - but I'm in good shape this morning, and I'm happy enough to present my points of view as to why I support the "No" vote for the Voice.

Unfortunately, presenting reasoned arguments becomes lengthy, and a long post on a forum usually tends to not be read properly, due to time constraints when viewing forums - so I'll try to keep it short, and number my concerns so they can be replied to accurately and individually.

 

1. I see the Voice as ideologically-driven, and not driven by any grass-roots demands to improve communication and Indigenous community requirements. As a result, I don't see where the Voice will produce genuine grass-roots level improvement in the worst-condition Indigenous persons lives.

 

2. The Indigenes are well known for preventing development at every level. They detest major change and they detest change driven by European-ancestry people. They are supported by a large coterie of "left-leaning" lawyers who enjoy massive levels of funding to present Indigenous arguments in the Courts of the land - funding that is not available to the ordinary aggrieved individual who is not Indigenous, whose life may have been upturned by unfair decisions or moves by individuals in Govt, the Public Service or by major corporations.

 

3. We had a previous attempt at a type of "Voice" for the Indigenous community. It was called ATSIC and it was an outstanding failure and was dissolved. The Voice cannot be dissolved, it becomes part of the Constitution (at a substantial cost, I might add) and then it requires another referendum to remove it, again at huge cost.

 

4. The Voice IS divisive and is predicated along racial lines. It means that a certain group of people with some often decidedly dubious links to the original inhabitants of this nation - who claim to be racially, culturally, ancestrally, and distinctly different in appearance and skin colour to the racially, culturally, ancestrally, and distinctively different people who came here from 1788 onwards - and they need special consideration, over and above other people that are not Indigenous.

The bottom line is - culturally and ethnically and ancestrally, we are all immigrants to this country - and I see no reason for any one culturally, ancestrally, and distinctively different-looking group to be able to claim special treatment, when it comes to Govt or Parliamentary decisions.

 

5. There is no requirement to present any proof that you are a holder of special knowledge or leadership abilities amongst the Indigenes. It appears that anyone can present themselves as an Indigenous "Elder" and therefore command a major level of respect, power and abilities to interfere in Govt and public-interest decision-making, by claiming they represent a huge number of aggrieved Indigenous individuals.

In our White Anglo-Saxon society, one has to study and present written evidence in the form of courses undertaken and certificates and honours obtained to present as qualified.

I fail to understand how these "Elders" suddenly gained massive powers that can affect virtually all Australians. Already, because I am deemed "non-Aboriginal", I require a Permit to travel across or access Aboriginal Lands. This is Apartheid, pure and simple.

It is claimed that this Permit is necessary to prevent "unauthorised access" to Aboriginal Lands, because they are Freehold Land. I own some Freehold land, too - but as a White Anglo-Saxon, I cannot require a person of Indigenous ancestry to obtain a Permit to access my property. If I did, the outrage would be huge.

But Aboriginals (or people claiming Aboriginal ancestry) can always access my Freehold property today, simply by claiming some Aboriginal Cultural Heritage lies thereon - even if that Aboriginal Cultural Heritage is only some kind of superstition, relating to a Rainbow Serpent, or some other mystical creature.

This development means I am now compelled to support the belief systems of Aboriginal groups - something I believe is not allowed under the Constitution. I think this area has yet to be played out in the Courts.

 

6. Finally, I believe the Voice will only produce another massive level of bureaucracy that must be set up to deal with Indigenous claims and aggrievances whenever some kind of development is planned.

You may sneer at developers - but the developers are an important part of our Australian society and developers are not just the detested "corporate white-shoe brigade" that develop unsuitable developments, regardless of oppposition or cost to the community - developers are everyday people who have plans to carry out any improvement changes to their land, road builders, miners, farmers, construction projects that improve our energy, water and food security - and even developments that are needed for War activities.

All future development is at risk of Indigenous veto with the Voice - a common problem today, and one that can only get more invasive and costly, as Indigenous people assume a primary say in decision-making that is out of proportion to their actual population numbers in the Nation today.

 

Edited July 23, 2023 by onetrack