The Voice

[TimeISmoney]

I think he's genuine in what he says, but he's going with emotion without thinking out all the implications.

As an Australian prime minister, how could he not know the division this would have caused? Surely he has a better understanding than that. The Voice is a mere red herring. When you're the prime minister and someone asks you about other documents related to the voice and he says there is none that's pure deception.

 

[Sean K]

As an Australian prime minister, how could he not know the division this would have caused? Surely he has a better understanding than that. The Voice is a mere red herring. When you're the prime minister and someone asks you about other documents related to the voice and he says there is none that's pure deception.

The “I haven’t read them” statement in regard to the back pages to the executive summary of Uluru was a flat out lie IMO.

 

[TimeISmoney]

We’re often told that the Voice is something that Aboriginal communities have called for, based on its adoption at the Uluru Convention in 2017. You were at that Convention, what happened there?

It is true that the Uluru Convention agreed to, among other things, a Voice to parliament entrenched in the Constitution.

But for the advocates of the Voice to claim that the proposal had support from Uluru is mischievous.

The group who are pushing for the Voice to parliament controlled the Convention so that you had to vote against all of the propositions, that is a treaty, sovereignty and truth-telling, if you wanted to vote against the Voice.

Back in 2016 when the preliminary dialogues leading up to Uluru took place, Tasmania voted in total opposition to the Voice to parliament. Noel Pearson came down to Tasmania and argued in favour of the Voice to parliament model and the 110 Aboriginal delegates simply rejected it out of hand.

Melbourne did the same but I was told later that the way the vote was carried out gave the impression that both Victoria and Western Australia supported the Voice to parliament, when in fact there was a lot of dissent.

My guess is that most Aboriginal people are opposed to it. But I don’t have any hard data to show that is the case. The claim by the proponents of the Voice that there is Aboriginal support is equally based on guesswork.

 

[SirRumpole]

We’re often told that the Voice is something that Aboriginal communities have called for, based on its adoption at the Uluru Convention in 2017. You were at that Convention, what happened there?

It is true that the Uluru Convention agreed to, among other things, a Voice to parliament entrenched in the Constitution.

But for the advocates of the Voice to claim that the proposal had support from Uluru is mischievous.

The group who are pushing for the Voice to parliament controlled the Convention so that you had to vote against all of the propositions, that is a treaty, sovereignty and truth-telling, if you wanted to vote against the Voice.

Back in 2016 when the preliminary dialogues leading up to Uluru took place, Tasmania voted in total opposition to the Voice to parliament. Noel Pearson came down to Tasmania and argued in favour of the Voice to parliament model and the 110 Aboriginal delegates simply rejected it out of hand.

Melbourne did the same but I was told later that the way the vote was carried out gave the impression that both Victoria and Western Australia supported the Voice to parliament, when in fact there was a lot of dissent.

My guess is that most Aboriginal people are opposed to it. But I don’t have any hard data to show that is the case. The claim by the proponents of the Voice that there is Aboriginal support is equally based on guesswork.

I think those people want something even stronger than the Voice, like Lydia Thorpe does, which would be worse for the country in general.

 

[macca]

I wonder if we point out to them that if they stop all development and export income, then there will be no more $100m a day into aboriginal affairs.

It would also effect everyone who receives a benefit, no more pensions, no more sit down money, no more dole in the cities, no more free flying doctor clinics in remote areas.

A reduction of services to everyone, no matter what colour or background, perhaps we all go and live in the bush as some have done in the past.

At least that would cut the immigrants, maybe we could catch up on our infrastructure, we should be able to knock up a humpy in a few days

 

[mullokintyre]

the things you can do with a strip of black electrical tape.
Some creative, but obviously misguided, folks who are against the voice to parliament.
Mick

 

[TimeISmoney]

I think those people want something even stronger than the Voice, like Lydia Thorpe does, which would be worse for the country in general.

Yes, I agree that they do, have a listen to indiginous protests in the 80s and 90s. In the article, they spoke the truth with the Uluru statement which if you research into it deeper you'll come to the same conclusion. Why would anyone want an advisory body that literally wastes money and does bugger all to help anyone? On it's own it's useless unless they can get authority over the federal government to act on the advice. That's why they always say "we never ceded sovereignty", as soon as the govt admits that it will open up the biggest can of worms that anyone has ever seen.

 

[IFocus]

So a devilish secret plot to suck some conservatives in to help write up a plan for an advisory body that's going to take over Australia (Mundine said it wouldn't achieve anything he obviously didn't get the script)

Not only that but I reckon there is Voodoo and bone pointing going on as well.

 

[sptrawler]

Well another indicator they knew that it was always a mess, was the way they left it until the very last minute to announce the date, the media were calling Oct 14 weeks before it was announced.
Well it was announced on the 11 Sept, we are going away from 02 Oct, so rang and applied for a postal vote on the 12th.
We didn't receive the application form until the 19th, completed it and returned it the same day, received an email this morning 28th to say they had received the application form and were posting the voting forms. Bring back Cobb and Co.

Obviously there was some planning involved.

Well the postal vote didn't arrive in the mail today, so the wife and I can't vote.
Pretty amazing really, we applied for a postal vote on 12 September the day after the referendum was announced and here we are on Friday the 29th and it looks like the earliest it might arrive is Monday the 2nd of October.
Interesting

 

[sptrawler]

I think those people want something even stronger than the Voice, like Lydia Thorpe does, which would be worse for the country in general.

That is the question, would a treaty where an agreed payment for dispossession of land is negotiated, be worse than enshrining the ability to pressure Government ad infinitum in the constitution and every dispute has to be fought through the high court?

I personally would rather just agree to a negotiated settlement, that drew a line under this circular whining, everyone has a different take on it.

 

[SirRumpole]

That is the question, would a treaty where an agreed payment for dispossession of land is negotiated, be worse than enshrining the ability to pressure Government ad infinitum in the constitution and every dispute has to be fought through the high court?

I personally would rather just agree to a negotiated settlement, that drew a line under this circular whining, everyone has a different take on it.

If it was a once only payment which guarantees no more land claims or special services , then fine but somehow I think some people want the rest iof us to be in a constant state of guilt and themselves to be perpetual victims.

 

[StockyGuy]

If it was a once only payment which guarantees no more land claims or special services , then fine but somehow I think some people want the rest iof us to be in a constant state of guilt and themselves to be perpetual victims.

Once only payment.... as in each time a new one's birth is registered?

 

[TimeISmoney]

That is the question, would a treaty where an agreed payment for dispossession of land is negotiated, be worse than enshrining the ability to pressure Government ad infinitum in the constitution and every dispute has to be fought through the high court?

I personally would rather just agree to a negotiated settlement, that drew a line under this circular whining, everyone has a different take on it.

Not all of them will want money for their land though. Some of them will want their land back but how do you work out a fair price for a multi-million dollar farming property that's still got years of mortgage to be paid off?

 

[wayneL]

Not all of them will want money for their land though. Some of them will want their land back but how do you work out a fair price for a multi-million dollar farming property that's still got years of mortgage to be paid off?

And how do you account for the value added?

A bush block is now a viable farm with infrastructure and an income etc.

 

[sptrawler]

Not all of them will want money for their land though. Some of them will want their land back but how do you work out a fair price for a multi-million dollar farming property that's still got years of mortgage to be paid off?

That's what has to be thrashed out, the aboriginals already have land rights over much of Australia, they already receive compensation from mining companies, they already are being paid special payments.
Until it is laid out in a structured sensible way the claims are just pie in the sky nonsense and the ridiculous blame game rolls on endlessly.

 

[sptrawler]

I think some people want the rest iof us to be in a constant state of guilt and themselves to be perpetual victims.

That is what we have at the moment, unless a line is drawn under it, the situation will never change.
The voice just takes the victim platform to a whole new level IMO.

 

[wayneL]

No no no!

You are all being gaslit as being responsible for past iniquities.

You/we are NOT.

You, me, and Ahmed down the road are "here" through circumstance, as are those "claiming" indigeonality(sic).

Otherwise, as an indigenous, displaced Briton whose genes hark back to those ill-tempered Pictish hordes, In claiming restitution from everyone, from the Romans, the Norsemen with their ridiculous helmets, the various Teutonics which even displaced my language, to the Normans who smelt of Garlic and BO.

Considering the preponderance of raping and pillaging endured by successive waves of those continental savages, a one time restitutional payment of £10m, only seems fair, no?

 

[TimeISmoney]

And how do you account for the value added?

A bush block is now a viable farm with infrastructure and an income etc.

and years of paid land rates, land tax, and maintenance costs.

That's what has to be thrashed out, the aboriginals already have land rights over much of Australia, they already receive compensation from mining companies, they already are being paid special payments.
Until it is laid out in a structured sensible way the claims are just pie in the sky nonsense and the ridiculous blame game rolls on endlessly.

It's a complex and contentious issue.

When I look at issues like this I look at countries like the Philippines. They got their land handed back and they're not exactly a nation of wealth, hope, and prosperity like we are. Knowing our indigenous were very primitive, it's very high hopes to think they haven't greatly benefited from British colonisation. I can bet you that most Filipinos would change places with our indigenous in a heartbeat.

How can one punish current-day Australians for what happened in the past that has nothing to do with them, and since when do 2 wrongs make a right?

 

[farmerge]

Once only payment.... as in each time a new one's birth is registered?

When will a definition be made on what percentage ofbeing an Aboriginal is.
Is it going to be as long as there is a miniscule percent then claiming can be carried on asnausium

 

[sptrawler]

When will a definition be made on what percentage ofbeing an Aboriginal is.
Is it going to be as long as there is a miniscule percent then claiming can be carried on asnausium

More to the point, when will it become unacceptable to use the victim card, as an excuse for not taking some responsibility for your own outcomes?
That is what is differentiating us ATM, once that is overcome, the problem becomes self resolving.