Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

The Voice

Jump to new
sptrawler said:
They were too busy trying to get the other brain farts, left over from Rudd and Gillards short stints in office, up and running.

But off course, just blame everyone else who have to wear the smell, then when the smell has settled let them back in the room after a stint outside to build up some more back pressure. :roflmao:

Gonski failure, that the new labor minister for education is trying to fix as it wasn't funding, it was poorly trained university teaching graduates. (who woulda thunk that).
www.afr.com

Gonski billions must be used to target priorities

The Productivity Commission has found that huge Gonski funding is failing to reverse Australia’s educational decline. Labor needs to rethink how it is used.
www.afr.com www.afr.com
The Productivity Commission has shockingly concluded that the $320 billion in “Give a Gonski” funding to be thrown at schools over a decade from 2018 onwards has “done little so far to improve student outcomes”.
That’s because the National School Reform Agreement deal set up between Canberra and the states to lift school performance has not arrested a decline in student results, both absolutely and relative to Australia’s peers.



Education Ministers have agreed in principle to major reforms to how we train teachers, following the release of the report of the Teacher Education Expert Panel.
“A lot of teachers tell me they did not feel like they were prepared for the classroom when they finished university.

“That their university course didn’t prepare them well enough to teach things like literacy and numeracy and manage classroom behaviour, and that prac wasn’t up to scratch.

“This report is about fixing that.

The NBN, back of the napkin brain fart that should have always been the responsibility of the telcos to install.

NBN CEO casts doubt on ability to turn profit

Analysis: Your move, government.
www.itnews.com.au www.itnews.com.au



and the NDIS funding, a great bureaucracy, that was always going to turn into a monster. Which it has.

https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/ndis-review-ordered-amid-8-8b-blowout-20221018-p5bqlj
Click to expand...

Thread is about the Voice.... some one seemingly objected to the spending on Aboriginals 2017..... I pointed out it was under the Coalition....Coalition don't want change, inference is they like to keep spending.


Your post has no relevance.
 
IFocus said:
Thread is about the Voice.... some one seemingly objected to the spending on Aboriginals 2017..... I pointed out it was under the Coalition....Coalition don't want change, inference is they like to keep spending.


Your post has no relevance.
Click to expand...
No your post was about why didnt the coalition reign in the spending.
I said they were probably trying to reign in other spending initiatives that Labor started in their two terms of office and as I have said many times Labor are responsible for the most socially progressive initiatives, however they have huge problems with the planning and implementation and that is why they get thrown out.
It is just you guys are so blinkered you don't accept constructive criticism and that is why Labor get chucked out so quickly and unfortunately this will be the same again.
Why dont they ever learn? Slowly, slowly catch the monkey.
 
basilio said:
Do you simply dismiss a detailed explanation of facts because they come from people from a University ?
Click to expand...
Personally I won't dismiss something just because of who said it and that goes for anyone and anything.

Academia has however acquired a certain bias to it, one that can best be explained by its insular circumstances and lack of exposure to "real world" issues such as those I mentioned in a previous post. There's a disconnect between the academic world and the lived experience of those outside it.

That doesn't invalidate their input but it needs to be seen in that context.

To illustrate, I'll pose a question. Who's best placed to give advice on going from rags to riches?

Do we ask someone who's spent their entire life in the comfortable middle class world of academia?

Or do we ask someone who started with nothing and ended up with $ millions how they did it?

I'll listen to both but if there's any conflict between them then I'll always bear in mind that one's actually done it for real and the other hasn't. :2twocents
 
IFocus said:
Thread is about the Voice.... some one seemingly objected to the spending on Aboriginals 2017..... I pointed out it was under the Coalition....Coalition don't want change, inference is they like to keep spending.


Your post has no relevance.
Click to expand...
I tell you what IFocus, I will give you a heads up on what is happening in your back yard, I talk to the locals in and about our stomping ground, I don't wear the aires and flairs and talking to the young people they are pizzed off.
They are seeing the prices of $hitholes taking off as Eastern state investors are gearing up and buying in, the prices are ramping and these kids who have degrees and are working their arse off are going backwards, it isn't going well.
As I've said, get a compensation payment done, get a line under it and move on.
If not, this is going to be just another brick in the backpack of future generations.
This isn't going to end well.
The middle class aspirational kids are working for nothing and productivity drops.
Like Bas I love your passion, but I think the engine room is not being serviced. :xyxthumbs
 
Last edited:
sptrawler said:
As I've said, get a compensation payment done, get a line under it and move on.
Click to expand...

I am morbidly curious what you have in mind. 100k each? 500k each? A cool mil? Is it a sliding scale according to blood quantum? Regardless, I think the idea is more about an eternal rent payment.
 
StockyGuy said:
I am morbidly curious what you have in mind. 100k each? 500k each? A cool mil? Is it a sliding scale according to blood quantum? Regardless, I think the idea is more about an eternal rent payment.
Click to expand...
Does this mean the other people of Australia can sue for being sold stolen land and their taxes misused? Any descendant from the penal colonies gets repatriated for the mistreatment of their forefathers because they were sent here away from their families for stealing a loaf of bread to survive? ;)
 
sptrawler said:
No your post was about why didnt the coalition reign in the spending.
I said they were probably trying to reign in other spending initiatives that Labor started in their two terms of office and as I have said many times Labor are responsible for the most socially progressive initiatives, however they have huge problems with the planning and implementation and that is why they get thrown out.
It is just you guys are so blinkered you don't accept constructive criticism and that is why Labor get chucked out so quickly and unfortunately this will be the same again.
Why dont they ever learn? Slowly, slowly catch the monkey.
Click to expand...


No, I said ask Dutton where the money went....gesszus, and yes it was under a Coalition government, the same mob who want to keep spending.
 
TimeISmoney said:
Does this mean the other people of Australia can sue for being sold stolen land and their taxes misused? Any descendant from the penal colonies gets repatriated for the mistreatment of their forefathers because they were sent here away from their families for stealing a loaf of bread to survive? ;)
Click to expand...

well if you believe in 'justice for all ' that opens a carton of canned worms ,
unfortunately England is on the verge of collapse so would take the opportunity to declare bankruptcy over such a claim ( rather than acknowledge their own policy decisions )

and ENGLAND sent them here ( by force ) and therefore they should be paying the compensation to both Aboriginals AND the descendants of the convicts , after all their big corporates harvested the wealth and slave labour benefits ( and sent much of it back to England )

i don't see why Australian taxpayers should be saddled with this as well as their tax burden , well maybe the descendants of the landed gentry you could but they probably already have tax minimization schemes in place
 
divs4ever said:
well if you believe in 'justice for all ' that opens a carton of canned worms ,
unfortunately England is on the verge of collapse so would take the opportunity to declare bankruptcy over such a claim ( rather than acknowledge their own policy decisions )

and ENGLAND sent them here ( by force ) and therefore they should be paying the compensation to both Aboriginals AND the descendants of the convicts , after all their big corporates harvested the wealth and slave labour benefits ( and sent much of it back to England )

i don't see why Australian taxpayers should be saddled with this as well as their tax burden , well maybe the descendants of the landed gentry you could but they probably already have tax minimization schemes in place
Click to expand...
Australia is becoming a total joke. Like seriously, how many times do you have to pay for your land, land tax, land rates, capital gains tax? The govt and indigenous are also lying about many of the facts, The govt has given back land that's been paid by the taxpayer in Brisbane with little to no consultation. They've given back 2 old schools and the indigenous have put the structures up for rent, that's nill land tax and council rates and they can profit from them, yet they claim they don't have a voice.

One of the schools had what they call a Moreton Bay chestnut tree (black bean), because it was used by Aboriginals as a food source they claimed that it must have been their home at one stage. That tree was planted there when I was a kid about 50 years ago, and to add to this they needed to crush the bean up and flush them in running water because the bean is poisonous in raw form, there's never been any running water in the area.
 
StockyGuy said:
I am morbidly curious what you have in mind. 100k each? 500k each? A cool mil? Is it a sliding scale according to blood quantum? Regardless, I think the idea is more about an eternal rent payment.
Click to expand...
Eternal rent would be a huge retrogressive step back to the days of lords and serfs, where one sector owns everything by birthright, it really would become a race based society that would be interesting.
Condemning your descendants to a form of financial slavery based on their race, wow that wouldn't make for a better society. :rolleyes:

IMO the aboriginals were dispossessed of their land, but a lot of that land has been returned to them, there would have to be an agreement reached as to what restitution is fair and reasonable, as was done with the Barnett Government and the Noongars of SW W.A.
Then IMO a Royal Commission should be held to find where the failure in the current system is and a way to make the current services more effective.
Again IMO if the voice has achieved one thing, it is that it has brought the issue to the attention of all Australians of all races and made them think about it.
Constantly blaming history for poor life choices doesn't achieve anything, as can be seen in many areas of Africa where outcomes haven't changed much despite self determination, from what I've seen.
Who will be to blame if the voice gets up and the health, education, life expectancy and educational outcomes actually become worse, as happened with our education system in the last 10 - 15 years, despite the problem supposedly being identified and addressed? It is never that easy, getting people to accept responsibility and accepting some of the blame for for their own outcomes. :2twocents
 
Last edited:
Trying a new tack.

Indigenous voice to parliament: Open letter to Undecided of Good Heart and Head

Dear Undecided of Good Heart and Head,

In this excruciating referendum you’re the people I like most. You’re not nasty, dim or condescending. And there’s a lot of that stuff going around on both sides. You really do understand the awful situation of Indigenous people. You’re bright enough to analyse the arguments. You’re open to the voice but just can’t get there because you haven’t been told what it is, or you think the words are slapdash, or you worry about who’s going to run the thing. Or something else.

At the moment you’re clustering somewhere on the edge of Undecided and Probably Not. You’re complex, clever, considered and charitable, which is why I call you the Undecided of Good Heart and Head. In this referendum, your vote really matters.

As you know, I’m pretty despondent about the Indigenous voice right now. I think we’re all agreed that on current polling it’s sunk. I’m clinically depressed, some of you not so much, but we all have our worries about what a defeated referendum would mean for Australia.

There are only two ways the voice can come from behind. One is that the huge, expensive media campaign will push it over the line. The ads certainly are smooth and as jingoistic as a Qantas commercial, so perhaps that’s enough, but people are pretty cynical about that sort of thing.

The other hope is that this army of young doorknockers will turn the tide, as in the same-sex marriage debate. I’m dubious. Same-sex marriage was a clear and very personal issue, and this just isn’t. Besides, you lot probably would be pretty irritated by some adolescent turning up to lecture you on something you already know about.

The other hope is that this army of young doorknockers will turn the tide, as in the same-sex marriage debate. I’m dubious. Same-sex marriage was a clear and very personal issue, and this just isn’t. Besides, you lot probably would be pretty irritated by some adolescent turning up to lecture you on something you already know about.

From what I know, it now all comes down to “segmentation”. It sounds a bit biological, but it’s about slicing the referendum electorate into different bits, and working out what might persuade each portion.

At the moment it’s really a problem only for our Yes mates, because if the figures don’t move the No side can sit on its hands whistling Waltzing Matilda. The PR geniuses advising the Yes team have come up with three segments: the Yeses, the Noes and the Undecideds. Who’d a thunk it? Basically, they plan to grab the “soft Noes” and all the Undecideds. As it says in The Castle, they’re dreamin’.

I know I bang on about the republic a lot, but in my experience there’s no such thing as a “soft No”. Once a person actually jumps off the wagon, they won’t climb back. I don’t think we got a single monarchist in 1999.

Undecideds are more complicated, but not in a good way. There are a lot who are just terminally confused. They’ll mostly vote No because “when in doubt, vote No”. They’re not stupid, just perplexed constitutional worriers, sticking with the tried and true. No brochures or commercials will convince them.

Then there are the Lazy Undecideds. We saw them in droves in 1999. They don’t give a stuff and they’re not interested in finding out. They’ll push past the people offering how-to-vote cards and vote No because they don’t like being pestered, particularly on a Saturday.

Then there are you guys with your good brains and decent feelings. You’re one of the few groups that realistically might move to Yes and, frankly, one of the groups actually worth having. You’re undecided precisely because you do think and worry.

Something one of you said chilled me to the bone. This person lamented that they desperately wanted to vote for the voice, but no one had given them an excuse. They weren’t sure of the shape, the people or the powers. As a Yes geek, that’s my problem, not theirs.

I know you’re very irritated by Marcia Langton implying you are racist idiots and everybody else on the Yes side saying you are “misinformed”, which sounds like you should go to a re-education camp.

I’ve talked about you to senior Yes figures and government politicians. They all dismiss you as people who were always going to vote No – the dregs of the referendum, hardline conservative Noes who want to hide behind a facade of reasonableness.

Problem is, they’re hopelessly wrong. I keep telling them that – particularly from a moderately “progressive” point of view – you’re the best there is. Lots of you are lifelong Labor branch members who turn up to help at every election. Others are moderate conservatives who provide the backbone of numerous charities.

For me, it’s unsurprising. Many of you come from the old Catholic social justice tradition that morally impels us to accept the humanity of every person and to treat them with human dignity. But others are Protestants, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists and spotted dalmatians. They all work on the basis of securing the common good. It may sound a bit basic, but I think it’s time to apply that concept to the voice.

So here are the reasons people like you – and me – should vote Yes, and why people like you should get off the fence.

First of all, the voice is not at heart a political or constitutional question. It’s about morals and ethics, just like euthanasia and refugees. You don’t start with grammatical doubts or operational quibbles. You begin with the moral imperative. To misquote, Mary MacKillop, when in doubt, do something.

So, we have to understand the challenges and doubts with the voice within the basic moral equation. Every time there is a problem, our job is to understand and try to solve it. We shouldn’t play ideological poker and throw in our hand in the face of any difficulty. Above all, we should not use challenges to stop us having to make a hard decision.

The second thing is that you guys understand the limits of words (some of you taught them professionally for years). Words are no match for meaning. Constitutional words are important, but they can take you only so far. The real question is always going to be the fundamental direction.

There are constant fights over words (remember the Reformation and insurance policies). As you always remind me, constitutional lawyers like me think they own every word in the dictionary. But when you’re arguing about every syllable of “executive government”, isn’t it time to take a mild chance on something sublime rather than drown it because it may not be perfect?

Remember what I’ve always said about lawyers and compromise? They’ll advise war one day and free love the next. The current Constitution is almost bursting with compromise. If we took every haggle out of it, there’d be nothing left. Same here. If Craven said three months ago something would be fatal and says now we can live with it, that’s not a lie or a contradiction, even for a lawyer. It just means he has had a chance to think about it, put it in legal proportion and weigh the noun against the outcome.

For rusted-on pragmatists in a good cause, constitutional drafting is not a religion. It’s a means to an end. Good enough is good enough.

I get it that people of Heart and Head worry about who will run the voice. After all, some of the campaign personnel have not been that reassuring on the Yes side, and Indigenous Yes supporters inevitably will be the future operatives of the voice.

None of us likes being screamed at by Langton or dismissed as racists by Linda Burney but, to be honest, aren’t we big enough to cut them a bit of tolerant slack? They both look back on pretty challenging lives and they must be terrified of losing. I think we can tolerate a bit of hysterics.

You also have to admit there are a lot of dedicated Indigenous people working tirelessly and humbly on the Yes side. For every grandstanding Indigenous academic, there is an Indigenous nurse humbly painting Yes placards. And to take the controversial example of a Yes leader, Noel Pearson may be volatile but he’s still the best speaker in the country and passionately believes in what he says (even when he’s wrong). But behind the oratory are decades of confronting service in education and social cohesion. I’m looking forward to speaking on the same platform with him in Brisbane on September 29.

The point is, who runs the voice is like the words. They won’t be perfect – who is? – but that’s no reason to give up the whole moral project. On average, they will be averagely good, which is good enough.

The question for you, Good Heads and Hearts, is whether the peopling of the voice will be so God-awful that we should cash in our social justice hand. That’d be a very big decision.

I get that you want to know what the voice will look like, and you don’t want a dud passed off as gold standard. Neither do I, loudly. But honestly, hasn’t enough detail been dragged from the Prime Minister over the campaign?

It’ll be composed of Indigenous people, drawn from local regions, appointed or elected for set terms and rolled over, without a bureaucracy, purely advisory, just a committee, have designated priorities and will be unable to make representations on matters that are none of its business, such as submarines and sex.

It’s not exactly an architect’s drawing but it gives us a pretty fair idea. Are we really going to pull the plug on Indigenous hope over salaries and board numbers? Better to just hold Anthony Albanese to his promises.

The last thing is just for you compassionate and clever hesitants. It’s a hard point to make in public. The No side is ruthlessly dismissive and the Yes brokers are just plain mawkish. But what happens if this referendum flops? Where are we then? This is not the pathetic argument about what other nations will think of us. Who cares? The real questions are how would we feel about ourselves, and how would Indigenous people feel about us?

The No botherers say we can’t think about this in deciding a referendum, but they’re wrong. It might have been a good reason not to have a referendum at all, but it’s too late for that (sorry). Now we’re in the middle of the thing, so it’s fair enough to think of moral outcomes as much as anything else. Me, I’d feel dirty. Whatever the real reasons behind a No vote, I’d feel we’d rejected our Indigenous brothers and sisters. I’d feel we’d failed in something big for little reasons. I’d feel we were a little country.

I shudder at what Indigenous Australians would think of us. I got a fair idea when a very dignified Aboriginal friend cried in front of me, not for herself but for her children. Whatever way you look at it, this will be as ugly as sin.

I think if I were an Indigenous person, I’d feel utterly rejected. It’d be like a six-year-old being turned away from a birthday party when they had an invitation. The message would be that we don’t want you, we don’t like you, we don’t need you.

If I were Indigenous, I just wouldn’t know where to go. Frankly, the voice is a proposal so pathetically understated that I’m amazed most Indigenous people are settling for it. After all, I helped design it as something so modest that no reasonable non-Indigenous Australian could reject it. More fool me.

What I’m saying is that for people of goodwill and intellect, like you, who are worried or unsure about the referendum, this horror of sorrow is something we really need to think about. It’s one thing to ditch a referendum that no one really cares about, or is hopelessly unsound, but do we want to utterly crush a whole people because the drafting is not quite up to our version of scratch?

It all goes back to the start. For decent, clever people (like you, and questionably me) with no taste for propaganda or politics on either side, recognition and the voice are really moral questions, not legal or political ones. When you look at it like that, we’re being asked to make a huge ethical decision on October 14.

Of all Australians, you guys have the biggest chance of getting it right in the right way. Good luck – you’ll need it.

Yours in nervous affection,

Greg

Greg Craven is a constitutional lawyer and former vice-chancellor of the Australian Catholic University.
Click to expand...
 
sptrawler said:
Eternal rent would be a huge retrogressive step back to the days of lords and serfs, where one sector owns everything by birthright, it really would become a race based society that would be interesting.
Condemning your descendants to a form of financial slavery based on their race, wow that wouldn't make for a better society. :rolleyes:

IMO the aboriginals were dispossessed of their land, but a lot of that land has been returned to them, there would have to be an agreement reached as to what restitution is fair and reasonable, as was done with the Barnett Government and the Noongars of SW W.A.
Then IMO a Royal Commission should be held to find where the failure in the current system is and a way to make the current services more effective.
Again IMO if the voice has achieved one thing, it is that it has brought the issue to the attention of all Australians of all races and made them think about it.
Constantly blaming history for poor life choices doesn't achieve anything, as can be seen in many areas of Africa where outcomes haven't changed much despite self determination, from what I've seen.
Who will be to blame if the voice gets up and the health, education, life expectancy and educational outcomes actually become worse, as happened with our education system in the last 10 - 15 years, despite the problem supposedly being identified and addressed? It is never that easy, getting people to accept responsibility and accepting some of the blame for for their own outcomes. :2twocents
Click to expand...

Would've been more entertaining had you posited a dollar amount like I asked lol. ABS says at June 2021, there were 983,700 ATSIs here. How much wealth transfer, how much debt do we need to go into? Maybe start a GoFundMe where those who feel guilty can give to their heart's content.
 
StockyGuy said:
Would've been more entertaining had you posited a dollar amount like I asked lol. ABS says at June 2021, there were 983,700 ATSIs here. How much wealth transfer, how much debt do we need to go into? Maybe start a GoFundMe where those who feel guilty can give to their heart's content.
Click to expand...

Britain's second-largest city effectively declares itself bankrupt amid $1.5 billion equal pay claims​

Britain's second-biggest city has effectively declared itself bankrupt, shutting down all nonessential spending after being issued with equal pay claims totalling up to £760 million (almost $1.5 billion).
Birmingham City Council, which provides services for more than one million people, filed a Section 114 notice on Tuesday local time, halting all spending except on essential services.
 
AS one who is presently undecided on whether to vote yes or no, may I tell you where I'm at presently.

45% to vote YES, 55% inclined to vote NO

And to those who dismiss the power of advertising, some weeks ago before the YES vote commenced spending all their (our, I am a proponenet of non-crossdressing pronouns) it was 40% YES 60% NO. and I don't watch television much nor much television for that matter.

So there are times when I feel as many of my cosmopolitan cousins and friends do, that there is much needs "doing" for indigenous emancipation to be possible. Then I look at the waste, and the people least indigenous at the top of a wasteful money-pile, who will turn their voice in to a bigger money pile and then power as in an aristocracy.

Then I look at my grandchildren and think No. But atm. 45% is YES in me. I need good reasons to vote Yes, and so far Im haven't been given the most important one. The one on good governance.

Can someone reassure me that the consequence of a voice will not be a just big piss up and a boon for Audi, BMW and Tesla dealerships. ?

gg
 
Garpal Gumnut said:
Can someone reassure me that the consequence of a voice will not be a just big piss up and a boon for Audi, BMW and Tesla dealerships. ?
Click to expand...

Not really. A body guaranteed existence in the Constitution will always turn out to be a gravy train.

ATSIC was for some which is why it got abolished.

I can't see anything different happening, except it will be worse if it's guaranteed protection.
 

Similar threads

R
The American use of War Pretext Incidents
Replies
6
Views
9K
sptrawler
sptrawler
Top