Further Effects of "The Voice" debate

[facthunter]

Red . A prominent Aborigine NO person ex ALP is Warren Mundine who is married to Gerard Henderson's Daughter.  Nuff said??.. Ken Wyatt is the once liberal aborigine lower house member from WA who has resigned the Liberal party because of their stand.  NOW working fully for the YES case. The Angry Women want much more . SOVEREIGN Rights. It pays to do your homework.  Nev

Edited July 23, 2023 by facthunter
more content.

[Bruce Tuncks]

Whaddeya mean "sovereign rights" nev?

[facthunter]

Transfer of ownership of LAND. Nev

[octave]

28 minutes ago, onetrack said:

All future development is at risk of Indigenous veto with the Voice

My understanding is that any advice is not binding.

 

31 minutes ago, onetrack said:

The Indigenes are well known for preventing development at every level. They detest major change and they detest change driven by European-ancestry people.

What,  every single one of them?  Are there no mining projects? , Are there no royalties being paid?

 

33 minutes ago, onetrack said:

The Voice cannot be dissolved, it becomes part of the Constitution

The advice can be ignored.

 

34 minutes ago, onetrack said:

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.

I would be surprised if this were the case. 

 

 

 

Are people aware that the South Australian parliament has already passed state legislation for a specifically sate based voice?   I guess if the constitutional referendum fails as I think it will, we shall have to see whether the local SA scheme leads to disaster or success or something in between.   I have trawled through the details and it seems pretty modest to me. 

 

 

36 minutes ago, onetrack said:

major level to Octaves raging come-on,

 

Onetrack do you really think that my posts were offensive and over the top?    It wasn't posted with rage but rather a desire to elevate the debate to a level above "I reckon this" or "I knew this aborigine who once did x"    If my level of debate is too harsh then I can leave it. 

[old man emu]

I'm sorry that I linked this discussion to another problem - runaway consultancy fees. So please leave that out of the discussion.

 

My idea of locals gathering to identify and possibly formulate plans to solve local problems seems to me to be the most efficient way to begin making improvements right where the improvements are needed.

 

Like any group which wants to plan something, guidance is needed on how to do that planning efficiently. That's an area where outside help would be profitable. I'm only talking of introducing these local groups, who don't have the type of culture that facilitates communication in the way that White culture communicates with government. Basically, these local groups who really are "illiterate" in the ways of getting things done under the White systems, could be shown how to prepare submissions to explain their requirements and to display the plans they have developed.

 

Does this sound like an unreal approach? It is the way that local White groups, Local Government and State Governments go about making changes to society.

[Old Koreelah]

57 minutes ago, onetrack said:

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.

 

Agreed, ATSIC was far from perfect, but so were quite a few other government bodies, some of which were more corrupted and wasteful. Were they subjected to the same ridicule from the right-wing media?

57 minutes ago, onetrack said:

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.

Good point, but instead of tossing the whole idea of Elders, why not fine-tune it by requiring community acknowledgement of their status?

57 minutes ago, onetrack said:

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.

Interesting point.

 

57 minutes ago, onetrack said:

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..

Good point; as OME suggests, the bureacracy is due a good clean-out.
May I suggest this former minister in the NSW government, who is widely credited with major improvements in Service NSW: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_Dominello

[pmccarthy]

I am hoping the vote is cancelled. A no vote will divide our society, and a no vote we will get. I will vote no because I can only see negative outcomes from the model proposed.

Let the pollies go and think about it for a couple of years before we vote. If they come up with something helpful to the aborigines, then I will support it.

[old man emu]

28 minutes ago, octave said:

Are there no royalties being paid?

Wow! You've opened a can of worms there!

 

I'd like, in this post, to ignore the "why?" of the payment of royalties. The payments are a fait accompli. My concern is "How is this wealth being used for the betterment of the people receiving the royalties?" I don't know the amount being paid in royalties, but I would bet that they total well into the millions.

 

Why then do we see the recipients living at "refugee camp" levels of lack of basic amenities. I don't really care if a person wants to dwell in a corrugated iron humpy if that sort of dwelling is climate suitable. But I do care that people are do not have basic sanitation and clean water supplies. I do care that all of them, children and adults alike, do not have the facilities to more readily maintain their languages and cultural structures and access to the education that would allow them to operate in a global economy.

[onetrack]

Re Aboriginal royalties, the ABC has run an interesting story on the Gove Operations in FNQ - which have provided mega-millions in royalties to the Aboriginal groups in FNQ.

However, there appears to have been little benefit from the royalties to the Aboriginals in that region, thanks to inter-tribal clan fights over "who gets what", a lack of obvious improvement where any of the royalties have been spent - and the communities in the region still suffering from a lack of education, poor health, repetitive inter-tribal violence outbreaks, and poor living conditions.

 

This suggests that the deep-seated problems of excessive alcohol consumption, violence in their cultural systems, and a general disinterest in any plans to improve their lot, haven't been addressed by their leaders, or they have been ignored. The simple fact remains that the Aboriginals in those communities have little interest in royalties, records of where funds are kept, how those funds are disbursed - unless it represents immediate present advantages such as a new Toyota 4WD for each and every one of them.

 

This lack of interest in the factors that govern their future, their health, and their living conditions, is something that is culturally ingrained and difficult to bring up to our perceived Western/Anglo-Saxon levels. The Aboriginals live for today, with little thought for tomorrow. They have always been that way, as I understand.

Their perception of "property rights" is also one that is in direct conflict with our standard Western views and modus operandi - their "Land" is not owned by individuals, it is communal land, and they regard all property as communal, and have extreme difficulty in understanding that an individual "owns" something exclusively.

 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-07-22/nt-gove-mine-royalties-rio-into-clan-groups/102611564

[octave]

I think my point about royalties has been misunderstood. To be clear I was making the point that saying  "The Indigenes are well known for preventing development at every level. They detest major change and they detest change driven by European" -ancestry people", which is at least a little inconsistent with complaining about all those indigenous people getting rich from royalties. Perhaps the quote is a little exaggerated.

 

I had already ready read the article you linked to OT.   This is a quote from it.

 

 

Clan leaders acknowledge there’s long been a critical stereotype that the millions paid to Aboriginal clans in statutory royalties are often squandered – spent on flash cars and at the pub.

But Yunupiŋu believes his Gumatj clan has invested its majority share of the Gove Agreement royalties, more than 70 per cent, wisely enough to stop a flood of people from sitting at home on the dole.

“The thought there was to get [my people] away from welfare, join the workforce,” he says.

“The Gumatj has started like 10 businesses here — woodworks, work at our own mining company, we’ve got a sawmill to cut trees, a coffee shop and retail [business].”

[spacesailor]

I don't like an ' apartheid ' referendum,   or this ' properganda ' bs ! .

That's costing over $ 364.6 m of tax payers ' hard earned money, 

That is now dividing our nation ! .

spacesailor

[facthunter]

Morrisson wasted BILLIONS of $$$'s during Covid  with Payments to the well off and never tried to get any of it back where it was not needed which amounts to about 20 Billion of TAXPAYERS HARD-EARNED MONEY IF the money spent towards aborigines is better targeted. we SAVE money by getting more benefit to them for the $$s spent.   Nev

[facthunter]

Morrisson wasted BILLIONS of $$$'s during Covid  with Payments to the well off and never tried to get any of it back where it was not needed which amounts to about 20 Billion of TAXPAYERS HARD-EARNED MONEY. IF the money spent towards aborigines is better targeted. we SAVE money.  Nev

[facthunter]

Gremlins there. Just read the first one. Nev

[old man emu]

The problem with the discussion we are having here is that the participants have no agendas to push. Therefore they are addressing a multitude of linked topics. The unfortunate part of this discussion is that the participants are debating rationally. Rationality seems to be a rare commodity in the world of governance.

[facthunter]

Flattery will get you everywhere OME.   Learning to  debate is a competitive thing where you attempt to DESTROY the OPPOSITION argument . This combative . A HEALTHY discussion is when we attempt to understand the other persons point of view and even assist them to clarify when necessary. On line is far short of face to face and we may have a view of each other far from what it would be IF we were Face to Face   eg I'm really NICE but I can't handle praise so I modify my posts accordingly  but they are real not from books and dedicated to hopefully making people THINK a round aeroplanes. .Nev

[old man emu]

I used the general definition of "debate":  a process that involves formal discourse, discussion, and oral addresses on a particular topic or collection of topics, often including a moderator and an audience. In a debate, arguments are put forward for common opposing viewpoints.

 

The is distinct from the more restricted meaning of speeches aimed at arguing that a statement or claim is not true, which is "to rebut".

[facthunter]

Many of us have experience of debating at schooL. All in all I have realised it might be a negative to employ the technique a lot. when  we want clear meaning and brevity as it's more suited to what happens here. If anyone indicates they want more info just ask. . The worst answer would be "I don't know" but then someone else may step forward  and progress is made..  Nev

[Bruce Tuncks]

Like I have said before, there is no understanding of private property among abos. So their property rights are taken over by white fat lady "legal abo" lots. I reckon their rights are too much already, what with preventing rock climbing etc. What advantage do real abos have that they have stopped whities from rock climbing? Why would they wish to do this? And what about the Ararat duplication of the Melbourne road? 

I reckon you will soon be able to point to dead people who were killed by the obstruction of this road duplication. I bet that there will be tricky legislation which prevents the real culprits paying.

Edited July 23, 2023 by Bruce Tuncks

[willedoo]

5 hours ago, pmccarthy said:

Let the pollies go and think about it for a couple of years before we vote. If they come up with something helpful to the aborigines, then I will support it.

That is a valid point. Taking into account the level of public resistance to the voice, and the opposition and government parties both using it as a political football to some degree, it does make you wonder if Albo is needlessly rushing it. The government is only a year into their term, so there's still two years left to let the idea cook a bit more. Personally, I think if the public opinion polls keep trending significantly towards a no vote, Albo would lose the least amount of political skin by postponing the vote pending further debate. If they have the vote this year and it loses, Albo will have a big political loss, and Dutton a big win. Postponing it for a while will be a small Dutton win and not a huge loss of face for Albo. The question is, is Albo trying to serve up a half cooked stew? Let it stew a bit longer and more people might be happy with it. There's always political risk in attempting major reform early in the first term of a new government.

[Bruce Tuncks]

I reckon Albo is fulfilling an election promise by going ahead with the referendum and honestly supporting it. I for one am embarrassed at the bad company I am keeping with the "no" vote and can't wait till things get back to normal and I can support Albo against Dutton as usual.

[Old Koreelah]

2 hours ago, onetrack said:

Re Aboriginal royalties, the ABC has run an interesting story on the Gove Operations in FNQ -

Actually in eastern Arnhem Land, NT.

2 hours ago, onetrack said:

- their "Land" is not owned by individuals, it is communal land, and they regard all property as communal, and have extreme difficulty in understanding that an individual "owns" something exclusively.

 

That concept of property ownership is at the core of Aboriginal Australia’s disconnect with the wider national culture.

 

Sad that many Yolgnu are not ready. Efforts to educate and train them should be seen in the light of historical experience.

 

Over a century ago they were being invaded and shot by white cattlemen and asked missionaries for protection. Yirrkala community was the result. The missionaries built schools and educated generations of kids. They had their own trade schools. Yolgnu built their own houses. They worked at their own pace, with cultural obligations taking priority. 
 

After the government took over, Canberra tended to overrule local decisions. Local workers were gradually replaced by blow-ins and local people gave up.

This is well documented in Why Warriors Lay Down and Die- a book that should be required reading for eveyone in positions of power over Aboriginals.

[onetrack]

My apologies for the geographic brain fart, Old K - I knew Gove was in the N.T., but I was distracted by a FNQ item I was looking at, just before I started typing, and FNQ got stuck in my brain.

[Jerry_Atrick]

Bloomin Nora! The time difference means this this ol thread has moved on quite a bit since I went to bed last night.. and today has been quite busy (skip filling required - which is always cathartic).

 

OK.. incoming multti-quotes...

19 hours ago, onetrack said:

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.

Wasn't it driven fdrom teh Uluru statement from the heart, which had quiite a bit of representaton and too quite some time to formulate...

 

19 hours ago, onetrack said:

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.

A couple of things here. 1) Yes, they are a bit anti-development on their sacred land. That is understandable. I don't think anyoune would like the main churches in the cities to be redeveloped either. I get their connection is to large tracts of land, but let's face it - mining companies have recently proven they can't be trusted to look after sacred and antique aboriginal artwork - once destroyed it is lost forever and no fine will bring it back.

 

2) You are comparing bringing cases on behalf of a while class of people and the funding arrangements for that against individual cases; hardly a basis for a fair or reasonable comparison (IMHO). However, there are plenty of examples where non-indigenous parties to a case have managed to secure funding for their cause when it has been in the public interest. And you can still get it: https://www.ag.gov.au/legal-system/legal-assistance-services/commonwealth-legal-financial-assistance/commonwealth-public-interest-and-test-cases. It is not restricted to Aboriginal claimants.

 

 

19 hours ago, onetrack said:

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.

Atsic was a victim of itself, but was helped by the LNP defunding it over time.. So to go back to your idealogically driven argument, and I would contend (albeit need more research), that its demise was in part due to LNP wanting to idealogically see the back of it. The issue was that the president or whatever decided to get engaged in rape.. And before we start saying it is an Aboriginal problem, many white commonwealth cultured countries have the same issue.. Donnie in the US, and of course, Lehrman has been assused and there is still soemthing not quite right with that case - though the man is innocent until proven guilty. Surely it should have been relatively easy to remove the recalcitrant and appoint someone else? But no, use it as an excuse to "change the fiscal arrangements" and voilla - perfect reason to shut it down.

 

Referndiums are cheap compared to the other waste and paybacks by parties in government to their sponsors. And there should be no reason to have to remove it if it is not functioining properly - or is there some reason why, if there are issues or just improvements to be made, it can't be reformed - just like every other governement department and statutory authority put in place so the government can meet its duties under the constitution.

 

19 hours ago, onetrack said:

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.

"Some people with decidedly dubious links..." can you back it up with fact? Do you know how the representatives are going to be selected, what evidence they have to provide, and how long they will server for, etc? I haven't seen anything on it, and unless you have that info, it is an opinion only.  And are Aboriginals not racially (?), culturally, ancestrally and therefore disctincly different to those who appeared from 1788? Their cultiure, customs, and religion have been oppressed (as have they) for the vast majority of time since the first landing. Remember, their culture and connection to the land is many 10s of thousands of years - ours is approaching 24 decades; The high court has recognised the declaration of terra nullius was defective, and without providing treaties, we have effectively stolen their land. The High Court got around this by declaring that Native and Westminster title coudl co-exist.

 

I digress.. racial? I get the argument but it fails on one major account - it is only a voice for consultation of proposed policy and law making on indigenous issues by indigenous people. Hardly racial. Oh, but there isn't a white Voice, Indian Voice, Asian Voice, etc. Yes.. you are correct, but these sections of the community represent people who came after 1788 and were not here beforehad.. when they came,. they had to accept Australia as it was when they arrived, as Aborigtinals wanting to live in the UK would have to accept the UK as it is. There are Aboriginal MPs, but they don't necessarily get a say on how to vote on Aboriginal affairs if they have to follow the party whip. As usual, it is a lot more nuanced than Duttom makes out.

 

It is only divisive because the No campaign have so far sputed BS, which I provided evidence for above, in their propaganda, er, I meant brochures, rather than go for the facts.

 

19 hours ago, onetrack said:

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.

Pardon me, but at this stage, this is nothing short of BS. Do you know how representatives are going to be appointed, because, there is nothing so far that I have seen that states the rules of engagement,. And before you say you need more information, there is no other provision in the constituion that says how officeholders are to be appointed (well, maybe except for judges). In fact, the office of Prime Minister is not even mentioned in the constitution. And on our white Ango Saxon society blah blah blah.. Tell me.. what credentials to most pollies bring to the table - SFM seemed to have failed at everythign he touched, yet still managed to get there. Paul Keating as treasurer, I don't think had a degree, and certainly didn't have HSC maths; nor did Fridenberyger I think (though I may be thinking of someone else). An dof all those educated and "esteemed" members - the quality of public administration doesn't seem to have benefited (cue Robodebt, Veterans, massive corruption, etc).

 

Requiring a permit to travel across Aboriginal land is not aprathied. They cannot deny you access based on any form of discrimination. The land is theirs, and it is a ruddy large acerage which is impossible to set  up payment booths along.. .If you want to make people pay to go across your land, then you have the right to do so (unless there is a public ROW). The other difference is they have been granted back native title to land which is of historic or natural interest and are required to provide public access (except for sacred areas).. You don't have to.

 

Also, I guess the NSW (and other state) governments are apartheid regimes as well, as they collect fees for entering national parks - or as they are run by whiteys, does that exempt them from the same assertion: https://www.nationalparks.nsw.gov.au/passes-and-fees/fee-collecting-parks; and WA: https://exploreparks.dbca.wa.gov.au/park-entry-fees; and they do disriminate as it is for those that come by car (or other motorised vehicle).

 

"Cultural Heritage is only some kind of superstition, relating to a Rainbow Serpent, or some other mystical creature." is a rather interesting take given, as I recall, you are a believer in Christianity - which to me, is not much more than a few people as few thousand years ago spounting BS as well.. In ract, the previous government's attempt at the religious protection laws would have even further playing this narrative.

19 hours ago, onetrack said:

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.

What, and every government department runs a super smiooth and optimised organisation? Where is the other level? Where does it sit between PM, Cabinet, Ministers, and bureaucrats? It sits off to the side and is consulted on policies to do with Aboriginals.

 

Other posts have disparaged their culture; and maybe pre and/ort post 1788 it deserves some of that disparagement. But maybe a panel of representatives can work with government to come up with plans that will be palatable to the first nations people to get them onto a more even keel.

Edited July 23, 2023 by Jerry_Atrick

[Jerry_Atrick]

18 hours ago, Old Koreelah said:

Good point; as OME suggests, the bureacracy is due a good clean-out.

Yes, but that should not stop progress to bettering Aboriginal (or anyone elses) lot.

 

12 hours ago, willedoo said:

That is a valid point. Taking into account the level of public resistance to the voice, and the opposition and government parties both using it as a political football to some degree, it does make you wonder if Albo is needlessly rushing it.

I agree with this, and could not help think when he annoucned it, he may want to have some time to negate the negative stuff that has come out, most (not all) of which seems baseless to me.

 

BTW, haven't quoted it as it is a few page sback now, but @old man emu's suggestion that bodies be set up at the local level is, IMHO, a good one.. and this can be done withing the remit of the voice. Remember, they constituiton changes enables the Voice - the form it takes is then up to the government, who will pass legislation (and no doubt secondary legislation) and they can - should the go to a consultation period about how best to form the Voice - constitute local representation.

 

18 hours ago, pmccarthy said:

I am hoping the vote is cancelled. A no vote will divide our society, and a no vote we will get. I will vote no because I can only see negative outcomes from the model proposed.

I would love to know what those negative outcomes are of a consultative body. But otherwise, yes, it has already divided our society; not because a consultative body with no powers to compell can really be said to be divisive in its own right, but because of the ideologies of those involved and the press, of course. Sadly another opportunity to have good honest debate wasted.