A Quarter of a Millenium Ago

[pmccarthy]

My mob need representation in parliament. It is all very well for those who lived here all along, or those who chose to come here for a better life, but my mob were brought here against their will, whipped and made to build stone walls and bridges and so on with chains on their legs. About 20% of all Australians are in my mob, and we get no special recognition. 

[spacesailor]

I agree most heartily with the above post !.

The first ' forced settlers should have MORE representation in Parliament than 'my ' mob .

As I volunteered to be here !.

spacesailor

[old man emu]

8 hours ago, Bruce Tuncks said:

It was because Menzies was an aviation-ignorant pommyphile.

Partly true, but I have to bow my head in shame and tell you that it was Labor who tried to nationalize air transport. They set up TAA and tried to stop all the public company airlines from operating especially interstate routes. But that breaches free trade between States, so they lost. Then they switched over to using Air Legislation to manipulate the private sector.

 

As for our continues use of British aircraft to the exclusion of all others, I used to think it was another example of extreme Anglophile behaviour. But if you think back to pre-WWII, we were attached to the British Empire by trade. That creates a Balance of Payments situation that has to be resolved. So we traded agricultural products for manufactures goods, just as we do today with China. My thought is that it was Britain entering the Common Market that shut off those markets to us and opened up the USA. How did the USA pay for our agricultural products? Cars, planes and TV programs. 

 

Menzies might have had the top job during lost post-war years and into the 60s, but I doubt if it was only his affection for Britain that lead to the type of aircraft we knew in our Youth. 

[facthunter]

You could NOT get US $'s after the war. well into the 50's  Nev

[spacesailor]

That same thinking , put one of our Own aircraft manufacturers out of business .

Transavia Pl-12 Airtruk

 

 

 

spacesailor

[Jerry_Atrick]

8 hours ago, pmccarthy said:

My mob need representation in parliament. It is all very well for those who lived here all along, or those who chose to come here for a better life, but my mob were brought here against their will, whipped and made to build stone walls and bridges and so on with chains on their legs. About 20% of all Australians are in my mob, and we get no special recognition. 

I think, ,given the behaviour of especially those on one side of politics in the chamber, the representation of ex-convicts is well and truly over the 20% mark.  😉

 

 

On 14/04/2023 at 12:34 PM, red750 said:

Our Federal parliament already has 11 Aboriginal members, which is proportionately higher than the rest of us. 

Again, a bit of a furphy of an argument. Parliamentarians are elected to represent their electorate, not the race they are. Yes, they will take a keen interest of what impacts people of their background, but they will propose and vote on bills of many different subjects that may not be directly related to their background. Supply bills, bills on general subject matter, such as defence, roads, etc, They will have to be looking at it from a total commonwealth/state perspective; They will, in debate, hopefully, fight the corner of their background when it applies (for example, in debating a budget, they may want to debate more being sent in areas important to them - whether they are aboriginal or any other minority - or majority - person). But it is not in the same sense as consultative. And don't forget, ministries can make delegated legislation, which is often the administration and implementation, where they do not have to consult parliament. So, the aboriginal (or other minority/majority) members don't even get a look in.

 

17 hours ago, nomadpete said:

And the proposed "voice" is by definition racist, because it represents only one race.

The argument sort of makes sense. Except that The Voice is a "body" to ensure indigenous people are consulted on indigenous issues. It isn't a third chamber; it doesn't have any powers per se; It is simply enshrining in the constitution that representative indigenous bodies are consulted in proposed policy matters that affect indigenous people. How is such a body inherently racist? The charge can be then, that as the constitution does not enshrine other consultative organisations right to be consulted in the constitution, it is unfair. Well, maybe, but for some reason, Australia's track record in establishing and consulting with Aboriginal policy organisations, as opposed to dictating how to fix the problems has, by all accounts, been an abject failure. It basically ensures, constitutionally, there is a consultative body, and it has to be consulted on affairs related to the consultative body. 

 

The wording of the referendum reported here (https://www.news.com.au/national/politics/anthony-albanese-announces-final-wording-for-voice-to-parliament-referendum/news-story/03759ccfb21eb10146cc5ba559b61e06) is:

1. There shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice;

2. The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice may make representations to the Parliament and the Executive Government of the Commonwealth on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples;

3. The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws with respect to matters relating to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, including its composition, functions powers and procedures.

 

A couple of things to note: It doesn't state how the Voice is to be constituted. And it doesn't restrict is representatives to A&TSIs themselves; they may well seek appointment of whiteys and others. What it guaratees (and by implication, funds), is an organisation called The Voice. It allows representations to be made to parliament on matters pertaining to A&TSI issues and  parliament can [but does not have to] act subject to the constitution. So, exactly, what is racist about it? To me it reads Australia's attempts at resolving Aboriginal issues has been an abject failure and at the whim of political ideology, and lets be honest, outright ignorance at best, or racism at worst; and we are now ensuring there is constitutional funding for a representative body. 

 

Seems fair to me... And I was originally against it (or  on the fence, leaning against it).

 

 

[nomadpete]

6 hours ago, Jerry_Atrick said:

How is such a body inherently racist?

Because it is a specialist advisory group (group - assuming it will be an unknown number of paid individuals), dedicated to the interests of only one racial demographic.

[nomadpete]

Further, if the voice is given executive privilege, it is  potentially more than 'just a voice'.

 

ABC report today........

 

"Albanese, on the advice of an indigenous working group and law experts, has proposed a form of words for the Voice referendum, which if successful would give the body the power to make representations to the parliament and "executive government"."

 

 

[old man emu]

Experience has shown that treaties between indigenous peoples and immigrating Europeans don't work. How can they when treaties are the product of the culture of only one culture - the European one. In preparing treaties, Europeans own the bat and ball, and the indigenies own the pitch. The indigenes have uses for the pitch, but can't bat, can't bowl, so they lose. Look at the American treaties with the Indians. They don't seem to have worked. And the Maoris got taken for a ride.

 

After two hundred years  contact with Europeans, Aborigines have learned the rules. Legally they are the equal of the descendants of the first chained  European immigrants. However there are still all the false 19th Century hang ups of the Europeans that stifle the full participation in the life of the Nation. The greatest hang up is to maintain that Aborigines don't have the intelligence to function in a global civilisation. A European baby, an Asian baby, an American baby or an African baby all have the same intellectual potential. It is only the availability of culturally appropriate educational systems that makes the difference. 

[octave]

4 minutes ago, old man emu said:

Experience has shown that treaties between indigenous peoples and immigrating Europeans don't work.

 

Whilst no country is perfect, I would argue that New Zealand is not worse off for having various agreements and defined indigenous representation in their parliament.   

[old man emu]

2 minutes ago, octave said:

 

Whilst no country is perfect, I would argue that New Zealand is not worse off for having various agreements and defined indigenous representation in their parliament.   

That might might be as it is now. I was referring to the Treaty of Waitangi. 

[octave]

My point is that in New Zealand the Maori parliamentary system representation is way more than the modest proposal for an advisory body here.   I am questioning whether some of the dire predictions of the "no campaign"  given the example from across the Tasman.  

 

[old man emu]

9 hours ago, spacesailor said:

That same thinking , put one of our Own aircraft manufacturers out of business .

Transavia Pl-12 Airtruk

 

 

 

spacesailor

I'd say that it was more a matter of technological experience of the Yanks that produced products better suited to the work to be done. Then add in Economies of Scale in manufacture. 

 

What also killed off the Airtruk was the removal of the superphosphate bounty at the end of 1974. Between 1963 and 1974 these aircraft were in demand for spreading super over mountainous grazing country. It benefitted wool growers by improving pastures and thereby increasing stocking numbers in the areas which were, and still are the homelands of the rich rural conservatives. Without the bounty, these graziers walked away form pasture improvement. It is necessary to say, however, that the bounty was not actually paid to graziers, but to the fertilizer manufacturers who were paid the shortfall by the government when they submitted proof of sale.

 

Grain growers still continue to buy super, because production depends on it, but I wonder if those pastures that were improved by super are still as productive as they were in the 1970s.

[Old Koreelah]

3 hours ago, nomadpete said:

Because it is a specialist advisory group (group - assuming it will be an unknown number of paid individuals), dedicated to the interests of only one racial demographic.

Australia’s governments have always been heavily influenced by special interest groups- mostly wealthy whites and foregners- so now we’re complaining about our first peoples having the ear of government?

[red750]

9 hours ago, Jerry_Atrick said:

Again, a bit of a furphy of an argument. Parliamentarians are elected to represent their electorate, not the race they are.

Sorry Jerry, I have to take exception. There is no-one to represent the Sudanese, no-one to represent the Vietnamese, and so on. Why should one race be the exception? Institutionalised racism. 

 

The banner headlines on the front page of the Herald-Sun say that senior aboriginal elders are joining the NO vote. As Warren Mundine said, "This is not my voice." A group of metropolitan pseudo-whites who will do little if anything for the problems in Darwin and Alice Springs. Window dressing.

[Marty_d]

4 hours ago, nomadpete said:

Because it is a specialist advisory group (group - assuming it will be an unknown number of paid individuals), dedicated to the interests of only one racial demographic.

oh, like every other lobby group?

[spacesailor]

" Institutionalized racism " .

' Apartheid ' 

Which was So abhorred by the World .

spacesailor

[nomadpete]

2 hours ago, Old Koreelah said:

Australia’s governments have always been heavily influenced by special interest groups- mostly wealthy whites and foregners- so now we’re complaining about our first peoples having the ear of government?

Good point OK.

However, at least at present, those special interest white groups do not have their privilege enshrined in a special legal clause in our constitution.

And by the way, I am strongly opposed the their influence anyway.

 

My biggest objection the the 'voice' proposal, is the simple fact that it is extremely unlikely to deliver any positive outcomes for those most in need of help. I expect it to become just another costly window dressing. What is needed is grass roots assistance to help a disadvantaged demographic group to adapt to the present world that we all have to live in.

 

Changing the upper levels of bureaucracy won't change the outcomes for the average person.

 

Shuffling deck chairs on the bridge of the Titanic would not have kept it afloat either.

Edited April 16, 2023 by nomadpete

[facthunter]

Mundine is anything BUT representative of mainstream aboriginal thought if there is such a thing. Remote aborigines don't get much info because they are REMOTE. Thats the way they live. I don't have a lot of choice in the way I live unless I migrate. I'm locked in to this hopeless treadmill like everyone . I choose not to be rich. I don't like their company. 

  People are being scared off the Voice but as I've said, Make it theirs and then they won't blame US as much.  More of the same isn't really an option.  This is a chance to move it forward.. Dutton is playing the people. On every occasion he could show his attitude it's been racist.  Send in the AFP? What Bull$#!t.  Dutton is smashing the LIENP apart  like Trump is doing to the Republicans.  Nev

Edited April 16, 2023 by facthunter
spelling

[Jerry_Atrick]

8 hours ago, red750 said:

Sorry Jerry, I have to take exception. There is no-one to represent the Sudanese, no-one to represent the Vietnamese, and so on. Why should one race be the exception? Institutionalised racism. 

I have to admit, I don't quite understand the question or the point. An elected MP represents their electorate. If a person of Sudanese background is elected to whatever electorate covers the wet of Melbourne they live in, then they represent that electorate and not Sudanese. It's the same with Aboriginals. There are no elections to parliament that are for representatives specifically on race. Yes, they will obviosuly be looking at parliamentary business through their cultural eyes, but they are not necessarily even dealing with business related to the welfare of their community. Given much of the adminstation and implementation of acts of parliament are through delegated legislation - usually regulations set by the minister of the respective department and the executve public servants without consultation to parliament, it is a furphy to suggest they are equivalent to a consultative body dealing with matters of their race. I am not quite sure what you mean by institututional racism in this context so won't commennt..

 

11 hours ago, nomadpete said:

Because it is a specialist advisory group (group - assuming it will be an unknown number of paid individuals), dedicated to the interests of only one racial demographic.

Yes, and acting in a consutlative matter solely in matters of their race; what is racist about that? As mentioned, there is no restriction to the composition of the Voice; and it has no executive power - it can make representations to the executive (minister and senior public servants), but it can't force them. In other words, it can say, "Hey, we think this may be a better idea than what you're proposing because... " Hardly executive power, especially with an unsympathetic government at the helm.

[nomadpete]

2 hours ago, Jerry_Atrick said:

" Hardly executive power,

So. Why is the wording

"....would give the body the power to make representations to the parliament and "executive government",

being proposed to be inserted into the constitution, with regard to the "voice" ? (Quoted from ABC news)

 

As I said before, adding another layer at the top will do little, if anything to help those most in need at the bottom.

[nomadpete]

PS, if the voice has no influence on the executive powers of ministers, what use is it?

[old man emu]

It appears that we are all in favour of doing something to end the poor health and lack of education of Aboriginal people. It also appears that, amongst those of us participating in this discussion,  our experiences over our lifetimes have convinced us that anything that is centralised around a seat of government never produces the outcomes for the people who need those outcomes, but are not amongst those gathered around seats of power. Therefore we are objecting to the proposal of centralisation, but not to the need for what it should deliver.

[Jerry_Atrick]

4 hours ago, nomadpete said:

So. Why is the wording

"....would give the body the power to make representations to the parliament and "executive government",

being proposed to be inserted into the constitution, with regard to the "voice" ? (Quoted from ABC news)

 

As I said before, adding another layer at the top will do little, if anything to help those most in need at the bottom.

 

4 hours ago, nomadpete said:

PS, if the voice has no influence on the executive powers of ministers, what use is it?

Under most democratic constitutions, there are three organs of the state:

• The legislature: This is the organ that makes the laws and in Australia, and most other democratic countries, this is parliament or as named in their country (e.g. congress in the US).
• The executive: This is the organ that administers the laws and governs the country. This is the ministers and senior/executive public servants. In Australia, the miniters are basically the cabinet.
• The judiciary: This is the organ that, from a constitutional perspective, enforces the constitution; in Australia, this is ultimately the High Court Appellate bench (state supreme courts decisions on state constitutional matters can be appealed to the appellate division of the High Court).

 

If you think about how policy is formulated and the bills introduced; policy normally starts with the executive - the cabinet frame the policy and ask the public service heads how best to introduce it. They work through the issues, and then propose the the legilsation to introduce as a new law, amendment, and/or repeal (or not, as in the case of Robodebt). This then gets drafted as a bill and presented to parliament. Doesn't it make sense to introduce the consultation at the executive rather than all the way after drafting the bill? After all, if something was missed by the minister and his/her executive public servants that would have made sense to include, it would be a lot cheaper and more efficent to discover and cater for it at the formation stages rather than having to re-do a lot of the work, including tthe drafting of the bill to cater for it?

 

Sure, if it was a simple thing that needed to change, no big deal, buit what about a flawed funadamental assumption? Not only that, but as a CYA (Cover Your Arse) exercise, the minister and public sewrvants would try and push something through so as appear not to be stupid, rather than say, "Oh yeah, we f!ed up.. let's sort it out".

 

Due to the way policy is formed (starts with the executive), legislated (parliament) and implemented (executive), doesn't it make sense that they can make representations at the earliest point in the policy framing, and also review the implementation? Otherwise, what would be the point of it?

 

Robodebt is a perfect example of the power such a body would have.. ACOS and vulnerable representative groups made representations; even lower-level public servants who weren't sycophants representations that fell on deaf ears of an ideological, but, IMHO, morally bankrupt cabinet and executive public service. The Voice would be subject to the same challenges. All the referendum does is ensure there is a representative body  for indigenous affairs, which is something that NZ, US, and Canada do for the same reasons - they effed up dealing with the people they effectively effed up.

 

Yes, why not enshrine the same for all sorts of other things; other minorities, and, heck, RAA and GA; I agree.. Democracy are basically those ignroant in most matters voting in people equally ignorant in those matters to govern those matters. Lets improve things one thing at a time.

 

Edited April 16, 2023 by Jerry_Atrick

[nomadpete]

5 hours ago, Jerry_Atrick said:

Lets improve things one thing at a time.

Jerry, I understand your explanation of how government works. However you have only explained how government tries to work.

Your example of Robodebt highlights the way government and bureaucracy actually works.

 

I'm all for improving things but I can't see how this particular thing improves anything. (Thanks OME)

 

Just my point of view here, and happy to agree to disagree