The Voice

[SirRumpole]

Warren Mundine says voting against a voice to Parliament will make it easier for Indigenous people to secure treaties while backing a change to the date of Australia Day, two positions strikingly at odds with those of other prominent No campaigners.
High-profile opponents of constitutional change such as opposition Indigenous affairs spokeswoman Jacinta Nampijinpa Price have argued that voters should reject a voice to parliament because the body would open the door to treaties and lobby to shift Australia Day away from January 26.

My reading of that interview was that Mundine wanted aboriginals to be "accountable" for their own actions and not keep blaming colonisation.

I think he is in alignment with Price here, even if he has differences over treaties etc.

Warren Mundine backs treaty process, claiming it will be successful if No vote wins referendum

The Bundjalung man also called for the date of Australia Day to be changed.

www.abc.net.au

 

[Knobby22]

As per usual you get the media presenting what they want to take from the Mundine interview. As Mundine said, there needs to be discussion to arrive at what best suits the aboriginal situation, but as usual the media cherry pick points to cause division, magic.

Maybe the reporter could focus on the point they both agree that the voice to parliament isn't their chosen way forward, rather than whether they agree on Australia day and or treaties, those issues as Albo says aren't on the agenda, but when has that worried the media.

‘All over the shop’: Yes campaign takes aim at No side division

As an estimated 200,000 people rallied in favour of the Voice, Noel Pearson leapt upon Warren Mundine’s comments backing treaties and changing Australia Day.

www.smh.com.au

Warren Mundine says voting against a voice to Parliament will make it easier for Indigenous people to secure treaties while backing a change to the date of Australia Day, two positions strikingly at odds with those of other prominent No campaigners.
High-profile opponents of constitutional change such as opposition Indigenous affairs spokeswoman Jacinta Nampijinpa Price have argued that voters should reject a voice to parliament because the body would open the door to treaties and lobby to shift Australia Day away from January 26.

He makes some very good points. This voice thing is a distraction from real change. A treaty will be front and centre after this. .

Rejection of the Voice will unite the aboriginal communities like never before as the moderates will have lost out.
The Libs will want a solution which will help resolve this which will help people in Warren Mundine's camp get what they want.

 

[SirRumpole]

He makes some very good points. This voice thing is a distraction from real change. A treaty will be front and centre after this. .

Even a treaty is a distraction.

How will it close the gap ?

 

[TimeISmoney]

He makes some very good points. This voice thing is a distraction from real change. A treaty will be front and centre after this.

The separate state bills of treaties have long been pathed out except for NSW, some think they need the Voice first because it will give them better bargaining powers. It looks like a disorganised jumbled mess to me that they want to make up as they go along.

 

[Knobby22]

Even a treaty is a distraction.

How will it close the gap ?

People like Warren Mundine want to develop the aboriginal communities in the bush by getting funding and land rights as well as control over their own destinies rather than being controlled by Canberra.

They want control over their destiny. They want liberty basically and for this to happen it must be agreed in writing otherwise they will be at the mercy of the present day politicians, public servants and elites like Gina Reinhardt.

 

[SirRumpole]

They want control over their destiny

Mzybe they should ask the NIAA what they are doing with the $1.5 billion in their bank accounts.

 

[Knobby22]

Mzybe they should ask the NIAA what they are doing with the $1.5 billion in their bank accounts.

Controlled through Canberra by politicians worried about making decisions.

 

[Knobby22]

Listening to Warren Mundine now on Insiders.
Well worth a listen but it is on the ABC *

One thing he points out that was achieved from the aboriginal advisory body he was a member of was the Indigenous Business Strategy to develop businesses in the country which cost hardly anything but is now worth $8.7billion.

He want to go forward, draw a line and then take it off everyone's agendas,
He wants 3 things: 1. Accountability, 2. Education and 3. Jobs He wants these for remote communities as he says the indigineous poeple living in the cities are doing fine.


*(some people here don't have permission from Newscorp to watch it).

 

[sptrawler]

He makes some very good points. This voice thing is a distraction from real change. A treaty will be front and centre after this. .

Rejection of the Voice will unite the aboriginal communities like never before as the moderates will have lost out.
The Libs will want a solution which will help resolve this which will help people in Warren Mundine's camp get what they want.

The problem with the reporter of the attached article, he is focusing on what Mundine and Price disagree on, when in reality that isn't the issue.
As Albo says this is just about the voice, it isn't about a treaty or Australia day, basically the reporting is just changing the narrative to discredit which boils down to misinformation.
What Price, Mundine and many other aboriginal leaders do agree on is the voice isn't the way forward, it is just adding more crap to an already crap department..

 

[StockyGuy]

The separate state bills of treaties have long been pathed out except for NSW, some think they need the Voice first because it will give them better bargaining powers. It looks like a disorganised jumbled mess to me that they want to make up as they go along.

I've never really understood how a treaty is relevant here. My sense of a treaty is both parties at the table have SOME bargaining power. Basically the loser can still bloody the nose of the victor, especially if the loser is cornered. That's just not how it went down: any serious military threat was neutralised very early on. The ATSIs were not united at all, had no weapons to speak of, and tended to join up (and intermarry) with colonists.

 

[sptrawler]

My reading of that interview was that Mundine wanted aboriginals to be "accountable" for their own actions and not keep blaming colonisation.

I think he is in alignment with Price here, even if he has differences over treaties etc.

Warren Mundine backs treaty process, claiming it will be successful if No vote wins referendum

The Bundjalung man also called for the date of Australia Day to be changed.

www.abc.net.au

Exactly, you can't bring about change until those who are affected ask for it, as can be seen with the increase in alchohol related crimes since the removal of the welfare card, which has necessitated the re introduction of alchohol bans.
The only way the aboriginal outcomes will change, is if the past is buried and a common way forward is found, enshrining a feeling of victimhood for eternity isn't a clever move IMO.
As Mundine says, get the parties together and come to an agreement on a way forward, as happened in W.A with the Noongar people and the Barnett Government.
Constantly agreeing to disagree isn't going to cut it and neither is putting race based special access to Government in the constitution, which IMO will just add more complexity and confusion.
If they can't get it right, with all the aboriginal departments and Government ministers, adding more noise ain't going to change anything, other than more seats in the gravy train.
IMO the voice is a PR brain fart that has gone wrong and much like the Qantas Albo/Joyce love in photo shoots, is going to hit Albo right in the butt yet again.
https://www.auspublaw.org/blog/2018...nt-two-lessons-for-treaty-making-in-australia

 

[JohnDe]

Controlled through Canberra by politicians worried about making decisions.

The Minister for Indigenous Australians allocates funds from the ABA to the 4 Northern Territory land councils (Northern Land Council, Central Land Council, Anindilyakwa Land Council and Tiwi Land Council) for administrative purposes.​

The Minister also approves grants for the benefit of Aboriginal people living in the Northern Territory, taking into consideration advice provided by the ABA Advisory Committee. The committee is established under subsection 65(1) of the Land Rights Act to advise the Minister on beneficial payments under subsection 64(4). In 2021–22 the committee comprised 14 members elected by the 4 land councils, a Chair, and one member appointed on the basis of their professional expertise in land management. Ms Leeanne Caton was appointed Chair of the Committee for a 2-year term from 10 November 2020. The committee provided advice in relation to beneficial payments on 112 applications.​

The role of the ABA Advisory Committee will cease following the commencement of the Northern Territory Aboriginal Investment Corporation (see page 200).​

At 30 June 2022, the net assets of the ABA were $1.419 billion (excluding future commitments). This represents a 2.9 per cent increase from $1.379 billion at 30 June 2021. The variation largely reflects the surplus in operating activities attributable to mining royalty equivalents income.​

Funds from the ABA are distributed to royalty associations in areas affected by mining. In addition, the Land Rights Act provides for lease administration costs of approved Commonwealth entities and other leases administered by the Executive Director of Township Leasing.​

The NIAA is responsible for advising the minister on the overall policy and financial management of the ABA. The NIAA also provides secretariat support to the committee and manages the ABA subsection 64(4) grants.​

The NIAA administers the ABA in accordance with the requirements of the Land Rights Act and the PGPA Act.​

The NIAA is responsible for ensuring the ABA complies with the Land Rights Act and relevant financial legislation. Section 64B of the Land Rights Act requires the NIAA to keep accounts and prepare financial statements in respect of the ABA, as determined by the Minister for Finance. Section 64B also requires the Auditor-General to report on the financial statements to the relevant minister.​

https://www.transparency.gov.au/annual-reports/national-indigenous-australians-agency/reporting-year/2021-22-35

 

[wayneL]

*(some people here don't have permission from Newscorp to watch it).

Snarky and unwarranted comment that spoilt an otherwise good post.

 

[TimeISmoney]

I've never really understood how a treaty is relevant here. My sense of a treaty is both parties at the table have SOME bargaining power. Basically the loser can still bloody the nose of the victor, especially if the loser is cornered. That's just not how it went down: any serious military threat was neutralised very early on. The ATSIs were not united at all, had no weapons to speak of, and tended to join up (and intermarry) with colonists.

I totally get what you're saying but no one can deny that their land was taken from them. I don't agree with reparations paid for atrocities committed centuries ago from passed on generational trauma to current day people, this is taught and farmed to be milked.

If a grandparent of your children was killed in a car accident caused by a drunk, would you inflect mental trauma on them every day by reminding them of what the drunk had done or would you remind them of what a loving and caring person they were?

 

[sptrawler]

I totally get what you're saying but no one can deny that their land was taken from them. I don't agree with reparations paid for atrocities committed centuries ago from passed on generational trauma to current day people, this is taught and farmed to be milked.

If a grandparent of your children was killed in a car accident caused by a drunk, would you inflect mental trauma on them every day by reminding them of what the drunk had done or would you remind them of what a loving and caring person they were?

That is the real issue, the rest is narrative, poor choices, poor leadership, poor just about everything.
Sort out the loss of land issue and the rest is just behavioural, leadership and funding issues that require addressing IMO.

 

[StockyGuy]

That is the real issue, the rest is narrative, poor choices, poor leadership, poor just about everything.
Sort out the loss of land issue and the rest is just behavioural, leadership and funding issues that require addressing IMO.

Plenty has and continues to be given, on the basis of net productivity versus the cost of the citizen on a per capita basis. You can't unspill the milk, nor unscramble the egg. Would you have us leave all the land to them? Do we take back all or roads and buildings also? Do we take all our DNA? Most of the vocal ones are more genetically "us" than "them".

 

[sptrawler]

Plenty has and continues to be given, on the basis of net productivity versus the cost of the citizen on a per capita basis. You can't unspill the milk, nor unscramble the egg. Would you have us leave all the land to them? Do we take back all or roads and buildings also? Do we take all our DNA? Most of the vocal ones are more genetically "us" than "them".

Whether it is right or wrong isn't really the issue IMO, the issue is the majority of aboriginals feel their forefathers were dispossessed of their land and were never compensated for it when land titles were issued and there are plenty of high profile white folk who agree.

From their perspective they have a point, they were there, land titles were drawn up, white settlers moved in they were pushed out.
Just because the settlers value added, doesn't change the moral issue and yes without the settlers Australia wouldn't be the great place it is.

So now we have some people who don't give a rats, some that do and some that couldn't care less, but the issue isn't going away and as always with these issues the longer you leave it the bigger the issue grows the greater the anger and the more it will end up costing.

The voice IMO is just adding to an already failed system, the only way IMO that you can change the future for the aboriginals, is to come to a sensible agreement as to compensation and then give them the responsibility and accountability to change the traits that currently afflict them and cause the atrocious health a social issues they live with.

To enshrine a committee to join the talk fest in Canberra is beyond the joke IMO and just admitting failure, yet not acknowledging or addressing the cause for the failure.
IMO it reeks of condescending and patronising arrogance, but hey everyone has an opinion, these are just my thoughts.

 

[greggles]

I am voting "No" because there is no good reason why we cannot have a legislative Voice trial for 10 years and then, if it is working as hoped, refine it further and make it better and more effective and then hold your referendum. If The Voice is working and popular then it will pass easily and all the details about how it operates and functions will be written down and that process will benefit from a decade of operating experience.

But the 2023 Voice is all about Albo's political legacy, and that's a shame. It's also a shame that some on the left have started calling "No" voters racist. I take that personally, and I think they have done their cause a grave disservice.

 

[Smurf1976]

"Australia’s local right reliably mimics whatever the ratbag end of American politics does next

As does our Left.

Bringing back racism as an issue is itself a manifestation of that. Go back to the 1990's and the big push was to treat everyone equally regardless of colour, a point widely championed at the time by progressives, mostly accepted as reasonable by conservatives, and which even became embedded in popular culture at the time.

Then someone decided that no, Black is not equal to White and never will be. Started overseas and now it's come to Australia.

Personally, I remain firmly in favour of the 1990's ideal. Treat everyone equally and give everyone the same opportunities regardless of race, gender, physical attributes and so on and no matter what their background or circumstances. I reject absolutely the push to bring back racial discrimination.

Only exceptions being where there's a bona fide reason to discriminate that has no evil intent. Eg a medical study may legitimately need to collect data only about people with certain attributes or at least separate people with those attributes from everyone else. Another example is actors where a certain gender, age and physical appearance may be a reasonably desired preference for reasons of authenticity. Etc. The justified exceptions are extremely specific and generally self-evident as to their legitimacy.

 

[IFocus]

As does our Left.

Sorry Smurf but from the US that's a No they don't have a "left" in power Democrat's are further right that Australians Coalition, sure they have a few left politicians however simple test is the US doesn't have universal health care (health care bankruptcy is a thing) they only just up the basic wage from $7, non union workers just get hammered etc.

The Democrats are not held in high regard by Labor.