This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

The Voice

Jump to new
IFocus said:
A construct on the yes no voters
Click to expand...
With regard to education and the difference in views for those with and without a university education, I'll offer an explanation for that which is really quite simple.

Those without a degree are the ones who've been thrown under the bus with an assortment of previous "progressive" actions and they're fed up with being treated as second class citizens.

Economic rationalism, the demise of manufacturing, appeasing environmentalists, workplace reforms, utility privatisations, outsourcing of public sector physical works, urban consolidation and various others all have two things in common:

1. They were promoted as a great idea by someone with a tertiary education who works in a clean, safe and secure office job on a high salary.

2. Blue collar workers copped a brutal kick in the face which in more recent times has extended to non-elite white collar workers too.

I suspect many, particularly those promoting the various "progressive" ideas such as this one, are blind to just how divided along class lines Australia has become and the extent to which those responsible are viewed with disdain by many.
 
Last edited:


Couldn't agree more how ever they are all (with the exception of the environmentalists god bless them) conservative polices
 
Why should Australians simply Vote Yes for the voice ? I liked this down to earth summary from Joe Hildebrand

‘Reasons you can just vote Yes and get on with your lives’​

Joe Hildebrand says most people aren’t particularly fussed about the Voice so these are the reasons Aussies should vote Yes and get on with their lives.

And so the great day is upon us. Following the worst kept secret in global history, the date of the Voice referendum has been announced as October 14.

Most people – as I know too well – aren’t particularly fussed. So here are all the reasons why you can just vote Yes and get on with your lives …

Why are we even doing this? Surely the Voice isn’t the most important issue right now?

Correct – not for the overwhelming majority of Australians. There are plenty of people struggling to make ends meet or worried about losing their house who are right to think this is a second order issue at best.

But for the three per cent or so Indigenous Australians – especially those in remote and regional communities – this is probably the single most important issue in their lives simply for the potential of the change it could bring.

These are people often living in third world conditions, with diseases unheard of elsewhere in the western world, with appalling education and employment outcomes and levels of violence and deprivation few of us in the suburbs could survive, let alone tolerate.

So why don’t we just fix those problems instead of wasting all this time and money on changing the constitution?

We have been trying to fix these problems for decades and frankly it hasn’t worked. As the No campaign rightly points out, billions of dollars have been spent and countless resources deployed and the gap is still a chasm.

One reason for this is that it has been a top-down approach implemented by governments and bureaucrats unfamiliar with the acute problems of people on the ground, and so there is waste and duplication in some areas yet unmet need in others. Another is that Indigenous communities are often sceptical and suspicious of government intervention.

Having a representative Indigenous advisory body would provide a direct line to government to the areas of need it is unaware of as well as reassure communities that, if the government decided to act on that advice, the source of such actions would be the communities themselves, not Canberra.

But doesn’t government already have a host of Indigenous advisers?

Hells yeah! You might call it the “Canberra Voice”. This is about making sure remote and regional Aboriginal people have a greater say, not the usual talking heads.

The proposal came out of an unprecedented years-long process of gathering information and feedback from some 1200 local community leaders, culminating in the 2017 Uluru Statement from the Heart which asked for constitutional recognition that could deliver practical outcomes.

Ah the Uluru Statement! Is it one page or 26 pages or what?

I’m glad you asked! It is one page, plain and simple, but there is a host of background material that fed into it.

That doesn’t mean all these submissions are the Uluru Statement. That would be like saying a 1000-word essay is equivalent to every single book in its bibliography.




What about ‘truth’ and ‘treaty’ and all the other stuff?

That is quite literally not on the cards. All this referendum is about is the three lines proposed by the amendment, which says that the Voice “may make representations” to parliament and government on Indigenous matters and that the parliament will have absolute authority over the Voice, “including its composition, functions, powers and procedures”.

It is extremely clear and confined and it’s all we’re voting on.

But the High Court could change that!

The High Court is only able to interpret the constitution and the amendment is crystal clear. The overwhelming majority of legal opinion, including the most recent High Court chief justice, says it is safe.

But isn’t this just a Trojan Horse to do other stuff like reparations – which sounds crazy?

It does sound crazy, and it is. No government would bankrupt itself on a historical ideological altar when the Voice offers a pragmatic bureaucracy-busting way of improving lives in the here and now.

So if it’s that good where’s the detail? Why not just legislate it instead of putting it in the constitution?

This is the best question of all.

The beauty of the Australian constitution, which has made us the most peaceful and stable democracy on earth for more than a century, is that it is practical and flexible.

It essentially takes the best of both the Westminster and US systems of government and says: Here’s how to put together a parliament – now it’s over to you.

There is not even a mention of the Prime Minister in our constitution. It is a generously sparing document that has at its heart the ever-evolving will of the Australian people.

Legislating a specific model for the Voice and then enshrining it would be the opposite of that. It would set in stone a model that might work well for a while but then be impossible to jettison if it failed.

And if it was only legislated and not enshrined then it could be eliminated entirely, leaving Indigenous people back at square one.

The Voice proposal provides a fittingly elegant solution to both problems with no downside risk. It can be chopped and changed, dissolved and reconstituted, for any reason and at any time as our elected representatives see fit — the people that you elect.

Nothing it says is binding, nor does it even have to be consulted or listened to. It is merely a vessel for the most disconnected and disadvantaged people to connect to their government on matters most affecting them.

And so it means nothing to most of us but it means everything to some of us. And it would be a sorry and senseless shame if those of us for whom it didn’t matter crushed the dreams of those for whom it could mean the world.
 
Thanks Bas cannot say I am a Hildebrand fan but good summery.

One point that Hildebrand didn't make is that the advice will be public unlike now who knows where all the money goes and to whom?

An unintended consequent could be is that is revealed publicly.

The current system is run by elites both Aboriginal and mainstream with little or no accountability or transparency other than the gap report.

Ironically one of the issues the No vote raises.
 
Yes or No, democracy will prevail in Indigenous voice to parliament referendum

The Yes camp is cashed up and has many more activists willing to doorknock and spread the message than the No campaign does. It also has the backing of corporate Australia, supported by a rather strong undercurrent that if you oppose the change you must be some sort of bigot, as opposed to institutionally thoughtful and conservative when it comes to constitutional change. But the polls tell us the Yes vote is behind, nationally and in most states, so it needs to shift support to win.​
​
Some of the attempts by the No camp to paint a scary picture of what might happen if we enshrine a voice in the Constitution border on the ridiculous, as eminent legal scholars have been quick to point out. But predicting what might happen in the future is always fraught with uncertainty. That’s why progressive politicking is always hard.​
​
So far the Yes campaign’s strategy has been to argue against voting No rather than spelling out reasons for voting Yes: a poorly conceived approach. Beyond an overarching narrative that generosity towards Indigenous Australians dictates voting Yes, advocates seem incapable of answering simple questions like: why can’t the voice be legislated and recognition alone enshrined, and what evidence is there that changing the Constitution will even improve the plight of Indigenous Australians?​
​
Sulking that if the referendum fails the government will refuse to legislate a voice (in other words you better vote for the constitutional change or you get nothing), even though the Opposition Leader has already pledged support for a legislated voice, suggests the Prime Minister cares more about winning than the value of the body he wants established.​
​
It also has been inspiring to see retired senior Liberal politicians find their voice when it comes to the voice. Standing on principle when no longer in parliament is the sort of leadership Australians have come to expect (not respect) from the political class.​
​
Like it or not, it is the responsibility of those advocating change to explain themselves, and if they can’t do so in a way that brings enough people with them they lose the argument. That is democracy. If that happens on October 14 it won’t be because Australia is a racist country, it will be because the Yes case was weak and those pushing it failed. If, however, they turn the polls around and secure a win, then that too would be democracy in action. A modern example of fighting for change by securing the backing of the mainstream.​
​
Peter van Onselen is a professor of politics and public policy at the University of Western Australia and Griffith University.​
​
PETER VAN ONSELEN CONTRIBUTING EDITOR​
 

Joe's premise, which underlines his position and most other YES voters, is that the Voice is an idea that must be considered in isolation. Nothing else surrounds it and it is not part of any grander agenda.

This is false and it destroys his arguments completely.

The Voice is the first stage of the Uluru Statement, which Airbus has said he would implement 'in full'. It's plain and simple. It's written into the Uluru Statement and background documents that what must happen first is a Voice be enshrined in the constitution. Once that it done, it will influence the government and the executive (the executive seems to have been added in to ensure access to the real policy makers) to make the rest of the Uluru Statement happen. That is, Makarrata and truth telling.

Voting YES to the Voice is voting YES to The Uluru Statement, in full.
 


Section 128 of our Constitution sets out a unique and innovative process for amending a Westminster-style constitution in part because it is the only instance in our nation’s founding document where direct democracy is employed. It puts a question to amend our highest law above the parliament and entirely in the hands of the people.

Yet as we hurtle towards a referendum that would entrench a new advisory arm of government for Indigenous people in our Constitution, our founders may well be rolling in their graves about the ways in which the parliament and the government are undermining the process, and in doing so undermining the primacy of people.

First, the parliament has done nothing to ensure that there will be something even approximating a level playing field regarding the spending power as between the Yes and No camps.

Best estimates are that the Yes campaign will spend seven to 10 times that of the No campaign. Given the magnitude of the proposed change, parliament’s failure to insist on equal public funding is concerning.

The problem is exacerbated by the additional failure to cap private spending in some way. It is thoroughly objectionable that tens of millions of ASX 200 companies’ dollars – some of which was committed even before the proposal had been finalised, let alone any public debate was had – is being deployed to influence the outcome of a referendum.

As serious law, politics and business scholars around the world are raising concerns about the anti-democratic impacts of large corporations actively playing in the political and social spheres more generally, the parliament’s failure to check the oversize spending power of crusading Australian companies seeking to effect permanent change to our system of government is reckless and shortsighted. It is no less than a direct threat to our democracy.
 
Sean K said:
it will influence the government and the executive (the executive seems to have been added in to ensure access to the real policy makers) to make the rest of the Uluru Statement happen.
Click to expand...

How?
 
I'll bet that people will look back on the Albanese govt and see it as the worst in decades, all the irrational spending will come out once they're been thrown out of office. They only want to tell half of the story on the voice implication because they know barely anyone will vote for it if they know otherwise.
 
Sean K said:
How do you not know that?

"it would be a brave government that ignored the Voice to parliament." Airbus.
Click to expand...

Any government can introduce anything they like to parliament they don't need advice from the Voice.

But your view honed (I assume) from the Murdoch press and Dutton fails to acknowledge political processes i.e. it has to pass both houses.

Its just dumb like Australia will become communist because of the Voice.

Its just dumb like the WA heritage laws political over reach and dogs breakfast roll out what happen?
They rescinded it, why because no Australian government is going to commit suicide for Aboriginals.

I have looked at and followed politics since Harrod Holt drown, Albanese is by far one of the more cautious PMs in that time.

If you are a rusted on Dutton supporter fair enough shout the political BS but that's not reality.
 

Galah,

In response to the quote I posted, that makes no sense whatsoever.

The inference (threat) is clear. Airbus states that government must follow what the Voice tells it to do.

By the way, Holt didn't drown, he was taken by a communist submarine and then sent to an alien planet for dissection.

Sean.
 
Just like you don't need an enshrined advisory body to produce results if its only factor is an advisory model.
 
IFocus said:
Couldn't agree more how ever they are all (with the exception of the environmentalists god bless them) conservative polices
Click to expand...
They may be conservative but in the Australian political context they're Labor policies far more than they've been Liberal policies.

Of the examples I mention, looking at which political parties championed them:

Economic rationalism, the demise of manufacturing, chasing inner city votes at the expense of the regions under the (sometimes real and scientifically justified but often purely political) guise of protecting the environment, utility privatisations and urban consolidation were all fundamentally Labor ideas or they were Greens ideas implemented by Labor governments. Subsequent Liberal governments carried them on, but the ball was already rolling.

Public sector outsourcing and workplace reforms were the Liberal ones although subsequent Labor governments generally haven't reversed them, and in some cases have done it themselves.

Whether that's progressive or conservative, it was all something that involved some intellectual elite who didn't suffer the consequences preaching from up high what a great idea this all was. We'll turn factory workers into highly paid professionals, we'll have cheaper utilities and cheaper housing, we'll save a fortune in the public service which means lower taxes in the future. And so on.

Regardless of whether it's Labor or Liberal that's to blame, the working class who put their faith in academics and their ideas have at this point lost that faith. They might not know exactly who did what but overall those in whom they placed faith have betrayed that trust. They've been done over and they know it.

They know that their own parents or grandparents, living in a world of inferior technology such that one would expect life to be worse, were able to achieve what they cannot achieve themselves today.

Whether or not the Voice is a good idea, at this point we have a very fractured society where trust has been replaced with deep seated suspicion of change. The working class may not be aware of the fine detail, but they do know that if anyone says something's going to be reformed, that word is code for saying they're going to lose. They know that anything that starts out as protecting or saving something will get out of hand and become an excuse to stop everything. etc.

That's the fear with the Voice. A fear that it becomes another tool which leads to bad outcomes for the masses. Another thing that becomes an excuse to create land shortages and price rises. Another thing that goes from "we should use the available technology to minimise impact" and ends up becoming "nothing will ever be good enough, we're going to stop you regardless". Another thing that's sold as a reasonable idea but which ends up becoming the opposite.

There's a growing divide between the elites, the political class, and the working class. The latter's looking for someone to help them afford a house with a backyard in the suburbs and two cars in the driveway. They're not looking for someone to tell them they'll have to settle for a tiny apartment and public transport. They're looking for someone who'll make their dreams come true, not someone who'll shatter them then walk away saying that's life.

Until such time as the working class perceives government's on their side, they're going to be resistant to change period.

More broadly, not specific to the Voice, but in my view we're heading toward real trouble over this at some point. There'll come a point where the working class decides enough is enough, and the elites won't know what hit them since most do seem genuinely blind to there even being a divide.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Where will all the money come from to fund the stimulus?
2 3
Replies
50
Views
5K
tech/a
J Capital Research
Replies
1
Views
2K
greggles
N
The Australian Human Rights Commission: A national disgrace
3 4 5
Replies
85
Views
15K
Tisme
R
The American use of War Pretext Incidents
Replies
6
Views
9K
sptrawler
R
The Financial Endgame
Replies
18
Views
9K
qldfrog
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...