The Voice

[Knobby22]

@IFocus
This article says it all for me.
from Nikki Savva, award winning journalist.

The miserable fact of The Voice: We were always destined to get to this point

This is a defining moment for Australia. Ultimately, responsibility for the result of the referendum, and everything which delivers it, resides with us.

www.theage.com.au

 

[Smurf1976]

Fact checking ... But who needs facts in a debate on opinion ?

As with most "fact checks" it's not about untruths but rather it's about omissions.

Will the Voice take your house? Almost certainly no.

Will the Voice in practice be used to stop someone developing whatever industry, thus leaving Australia worse off economically and with the result that more people can't afford a house? Unproven but certainly plausible.

It's very similar to the environment in that regard. Hasn't directly pushed even one person out of their home but the loss of industrial capability and high wage jobs combined with urban densification and rising land prices has undoubtedly pushed quite a few out of the middle class. Their home wasn't taken by force, it's just that they can't afford one now.

Whether or not the Voice would actually do that is unproven, but it's a concern I have personally and I know I'm not the only one. That it'll be used as a political tool to stop development. That concern isn't baseless - we've already had whales turn up at a gas field singing Aboriginal songs after all. Amazing coincidence that of all places they could go, they just happened to pick a gas field and the songs just happen to be Aboriginal. Something smells there and it's not the gas.....

In principle the basic concept of a representative Voice to parliament for a range of groups in society doesn't seem unreasonable, indeed I'll suggest we ought have several of them. In practice however, in this case it seems very likely to become a political tool for the Left.

Given Aboriginal culture isn't particularly sympathetic to many "progressive" issues, I'll ponder how seriously the Voice will be taken when it advocates for something those supporting it dislike? That'll be the real test of how serious they are - will they accept what it says? Or will they come up with some excuse why it must be ignored on this occasion whilst insisting it be respected when they happen to agree.

 

[moXJO]

I certainly don't get my information from the stuff you and most others peddle in this thread.

The Voice proposition is of a simple advisory body that could offer input to Parliament and Government of issues affecting the indigenous community. Advice that can be taken, modified or rejected. The most critical element is the organsiation itself can't be simply closed down at the whim of a government because it's existence is now part of our Constitution. Mind you anoother referendum could reverse The Voice

There are currently hundreds/thousands of such advisory bodies across our community and in politics. Student Representative Councils for example offer their schools ideas on how the student body may view aspects of their education.

The Business Council of Australia sees its role as offering advice to Government on what it sees as its interests. Community advocacy groups, environmental groups, sporting organisations. One could fill a book with the bodies that take the opportunity to lobby Government on behalf of their members. That's democracy.

But what happens when one proposes such a simple non threatening idea like a body that could offer input to Government on issues affecting the indigenous community ? Yep the pearl clutchers come out in droves. What if. What about. How dare they. Costs too much. Too divisive. Won't do anything. Will undermine our entire way of life. A communist/radical/socialist/elitist front.

Legislate it first then when the kinks are ironed out and people are comfortable, then amend the constitution.
What Labor did was pure stupidity.
They lost the argument and millions of taxpayers dollars with a badly run campaign that was more about grandstanding than actual change.

Hollywood actors promoting at the start is the typical move of out of touch retards. It was so badly run that they lost a huge majority. Their message wasn't clear. It's no one else's fault they fu#ked it up.

 

[TimeISmoney]

As with most "fact checks" it's not about untruths but rather it's about omissions.

Will the Voice take your house? Almost certainly no.

Will the Voice in practice be used to stop someone developing whatever industry, thus leaving Australia worse off economically and with the result that more people can't afford a house? Unproven but certainly plausible.

It's very similar to the environment in that regard. Hasn't directly pushed even one person out of their home but the loss of industrial capability and high wage jobs combined with urban densification and rising land prices has undoubtedly pushed quite a few out of the middle class. Their home wasn't taken by force, it's just that they can't afford one now.

Whether or not the Voice would actually do that is unproven, but it's a concern I have personally and I know I'm not the only one. That it'll be used as a political tool to stop development. That concern isn't baseless - we've already had whales turn up at a gas field singing Aboriginal songs after all. Amazing coincidence that of all places they could go, they just happened to pick a gas field and the songs just happen to be Aboriginal. Something smells there and it's not the gas.....

In principle the basic concept of a representative Voice to parliament for a range of groups in society doesn't seem unreasonable, indeed I'll suggest we ought have several of them. In practice however, in this case it seems very likely to become a political tool for the Left.

Given Aboriginal culture isn't particularly sympathetic to many "progressive" issues, I'll ponder how seriously the Voice will be taken when it advocates for something those supporting it dislike? That'll be the real test of how serious they are - will they accept what it says? Or will they come up with some excuse why it must be ignored on this occasion whilst insisting it be respected when they happen to agree.

The whole thing rings alarm bells, they've worked on this theoretical voice body for over 13 years. Yet, what can any of the co-chairs tell the public about it? The possibility of how something may work isn't really a decisive answer for something that's been in the works for a very long time. To say there isn't any representation in politics at the federal level for indiginous is just another furfy. Saying that the voice is a body that only consults with no veto power is pointless and it's one of the dumbest things I've heard in my life. It either has more control than what they're saying or they're going to milk the system with govt funding.

In my opinion, they're better off trying to launch something like Atsic again that had more bite. They can certainly self fund a lobby group because they're not all flat broke. The amount of money that gets put out by mining royalties should suffice, rather than letting it get squandered by certain groups.

 

[Ferret]

I was set to vote No.

Then, in the last few days I see Palmer's party taking out big ads for the No vote. This gives me cause for a re-think.

 

[JohnDe]

Gets interesting from the 4 minute mark -

 

[moXJO]

I was set to vote No.

Then, in the last few days I see Palmer's party taking out big ads for the No vote. This gives me cause for a re-think.

There's multiple reasons to vote either side of the vote.
Looking at the reasoning from level headed aboriginals as to why it is/isn't going to help. Don't worry about the tards either side of the debate.

Personally I know how these things go. But out of respect am voting in line with an elder from the local area.

 

[Sean K]

Gets interesting from the 4 minute mark -

Burno is toast. I'm not sure how politely Albo can switch her out. Maybe Albo loses his job first and Marlo creates a new front bench with Ginger Jacko as the Minister for People Identifying as Black.

 

[sptrawler]

Or you could just read the gap report and accept Aboriginals were here first forced off their lands butchered, murdered, raped etc and should be reconised in our constitusion.

I'm still of the belief they should be compensated for their loss and suffering, as would anybody who suffered the same fate.
Why enshrine it in the constitution if it does nothing but give further lip service, as did the 'appology'?

It's obvious that the undercurrent with aboriginals, is they feel dispossesed therefore we all as Australians should respect our own laws and treat it as we would normally under our law.

All the things you mention above are crimes under the law in our society, they aren't anything to do with the consitution that covers all Australians.

IMO sort the issue, don't create more issues, which is exactly what the voice will do forever, as you well know, if you have been involved in union negotiations and contractual agreements.

People aren't stupid and Albos walking a fine line treating them as such.
Take for example, if something happened that affected the whole country like say war or similar and conscription had to be introduced, if that doesn't sit well with aboriginal culture, would the voice and its power to have say over issues that directly affect aboriginals cause a constitutional issue?
Who knows, but why would we complicate our social structures, when the issue is already covered in our existing laws?
Just my thoughts.

 

[JohnDe]

Burno is toast. I'm not sure how politely Albo can switch her out. Maybe Albo loses his job first and Marlo creates a new front bench with Ginger Jacko as the Minister for People Identifying as Black.

Yeah, it was painful to watching her speak. Maybe it was just a bad day at the office

 

[sptrawler]

Burno is toast. I'm not sure how politely Albo can switch her out. Maybe Albo loses his job first and Marlo creates a new front bench with Ginger Jacko as the Minister for People Identifying as Black.

What is really interesting is how low a profile the Labor elders are keeping through this whole process, it looks as though they are leaving Albo out to dry.

If the voice fails, there could well be a lot of back room meetings going on. IMO.
There are a lot of keen punters who want to drive the big chair and top up their super watching on.

 

[JohnDe]

"Only the most left-leaning voters appear to support the constitutional amendment."​

Australians are no longer united on Aboriginal rights

The “Voice” referendum to give indigenous people more influence in politics is likely to fail

Australia’s prime minister, Anthony Albanese, said it would be a chance to unify the country. The reality has been rather different. The “Voice to Parliament” referendum on October 14th will ask Australians whether they want to change their constitution and enshrine an indigenous advisory body within it. At first, a plurality supported the idea; now polls indicate the compulsory vote will end in a landslide defeat. One of the largest such polls, conducted by Focaldata, a London-based polling group, suggests that 61% of Australians will vote against the government’s proposed amendments (see chart). What went wrong?

Focaldata surveyed the voting intentions of 4,500 Australians, then modelled their votes to see how each constituency is expected to swing. It suggests that only 22 of Australia’s 151 electoral districts will say “Yes” to the Voice. All of those are left-leaning inner-city seats, whereas the strongest opposition is in rural Australia (most vehemently, Queensland). Aussies are divided along age lines, too. A majority of those under 34 will vote Yes, compared with only a fifth of over-65s.

Such biases have triggered comparisons to Britain’s referendum on leaving the European Union in 2016. Pundits say that Australia is split along the same cultural lines as the Leave and Remain vote (in which younger, more educated voters elected to remain part of the eu). In fact the data suggest those arguments are overstated: it is not only older conservatives who are unsure about the Voice. Younger age groups than Britain’s Remainers oppose it; over 40% of 25- to 34-year-olds will vote No, according to the data. Fully 45% of Australians who voted for Mr Albanese’s Labor Party in last year’s federal election look set to vote No. Centrists determine the outcome of elections under Australia’s system of compulsory voting and two-thirds of them are against the idea, according to Focaldata. Only the most left-leaning voters appear to support the constitutional amendment.

The polling hints as to why. Mr Albanese billed the Voice as a way to help improve the grim living conditions of many Aboriginal people by giving them more say over policymaking (though politicians would not be bound to follow the advisory body’s advice). Constitutional recognition would also help to heal the wounds created by colonisation which still plague Australia, the idea goes. But these lofty arguments have not resonated. And a loud and organised No campaign, led by members of the opposition, has flipped early supporters. No-voters say they oppose creating a race-based body within the constitution on the grounds that “we are one country”. Many view the referendum as an unnecessary indulgence during a cost-of-living crisis. No referendum down under has ever passed without bipartisan support. This one, intended to soften racial divides, is likely to fail because Aussies think the vote will aggravate them instead. ■

For a look behind the scenes of our data journalism, sign up to Off the Charts, our weekly newsletter.

 

[wayneL]

I'm still of the belief they should be compensated for their loss and suffering, as would anybody who suffered the same fate.

How, what shape should this compensation take.

How should we decide who the compensatees is should be, at what level of indigenity, at what level of advantage or disadvantage. Should Marcia Langton be compensated, or Ray d13khead, or the shoe polish bloke.... How about the CEOs of land council's flying around in private jets and helicopters?

How should we decide who should pay this compensation? The descendants of prisoners brought here against their will, their jailers, how about recent refugees with PTSD?

There is no universe in which such recompense could be administered successfully, so I am absolutely vehemently, violently against that.

Let's find a way to give the disadvantage to hand up but any centrally administrated restitution will be an absolute travesty at the highest order and will insure division and resentment.

 

[SirRumpole]

How, what shape should this compensation take.

How should we decide who the compensatees is should be, at what level of indigenity, at what level of advantage or disadvantage. Should Marcia Langton be compensated, or Ray d13khead, or the shoe polish bloke.... How about the CEOs of land council's flying around in private jets and helicopters?

How should we decide who should pay this compensation? The descendants of prisoners brought here against their will, their jailers, how about recent refugees with PTSD?

There is no universe in which such recompense could be administered successfully, so I am absolutely vehemently, violently against that.

Let's find a way to give the disadvantage to hand up but any centrally administrated restitution will be an absolute travesty at the highest order and will insure division and resentment.

I have to agree, though not "violently", a word which i don't think should be e used even in rhetoric.

How far back would we have to go to decide who was wronged by whom and why its the fault of everyone who did no wrong ?

Its too much of a can of worms to sort out the amount of compensation and who should get it and the only winners in the end would be lawyers.

 

[sptrawler]

How, what shape should this compensation take.

How should we decide who the compensatees is should be, at what level of indigenity, at what level of advantage or disadvantage. Should Marcia Langton be compensated, or Ray d13khead, or the shoe polish bloke.... How about the CEOs of land council's flying around in private jets and helicopters?

How should we decide who should pay this compensation? The descendants of prisoners brought here against their will, their jailers, how about recent refugees with PTSD?

There is no universe in which such recompense could be administered successfully, so I am absolutely vehemently, violently against that.

Let's find a way to give the disadvantage to hand up but any centrally administrated restitution will be an absolute travesty at the highest order and will insure division and resentment.

I have been involved in enough negotiations, to know that you have to go into it with an open mind, nothing can be given that is unaffordable and nothing can be asked that is unreasonable, but if someone stole your property be it a car house, diamond ring etc you would go to the police.
I in no way accept responsibility for what people did 200 years ago, but whether we like it or not it is an issue and it obviously isn't going to go away.
So some way of putting it behind us is required, the voice obviously is just going to be an endless blank cheque, that is just reverse discrimination where our kids our grandkids and their kids just wear the result endlessly.

With a negotiated settlement as the name implies, it compensates the claimants for perceived loss and then everyone moves on, that IMO is only way that the endless playing of the victim card can stop.

Just my opinion and I in no way say I'm right or wrong, only that from my experience it is the only way someone who has been dispossesed of anything, ever seems to move on from going on about it.
The Voice will just add weight to a claim, because as a nation you are agreeing they are forever owed for dispossesion.
Again only my opinion, but treat the desease, not the symptoms.

 

[sptrawler]

I have been involved in enough negotiations, to know that you have to go into it with an open mind, nothing can be given that is unaffordable and nothing can be asked that is unreasonable, but if someone stole your property be it a car house, diamond ring etc you would go to the police, because someone took it from you without consent.
I in no way accept responsibility for what people did 200 years ago, but whether we like it or not it is an issue and it obviously isn't going to go away.
So some way of putting it behind us is required, the voice obviously is just going to be an endless blank cheque, that is just reverse discrimination where our kids our grandkids and their kids just wear the result endlessly.

With a negotiated settlement as the name implies, it compensates the claimants for perceived loss and then everyone moves on, that IMO is only way that the endless playing of the victim card can stop.

Just my opinion and I in no way say I'm right or wrong, only that from my experience it is the only way someone who has been dispossesed of anything, ever seems to move on from going on about it.
The Voice will just add weight to a claim, because as a nation you are agreeing they are forever owed for dispossesion.
Again only my opinion, but treat the desease, not the symptoms.

 

[sptrawler]

I don,t know how the last post ended up like that. Lol bloody phones.

 

[Sean K]

I don,t know how the last post ended up like that. Lol bloody phones.

I think you meant this, with a touch of editing. I didn't fix the spelling or grammar.


I have been involved in enough negotiations, to know that you have to go into it with an open mind, nothing can be given that is unaffordable and nothing can be asked that is unreasonable, but if someone stole your property be it a car house, diamond ring etc you would go to the police, because someone took it from you without consent.

I in no way accept responsibility for what people did 200 years ago, but whether we like it or not it is an issue and it obviously isn't going to go away.

So some way of putting it behind us is required, the voice obviously is just going to be an endless blank cheque, that is just reverse discrimination where our kids our grandkids and their kids just wear the result endlessly.

With a negotiated settlement as the name implies, it compensates the claimants for perceived loss and then everyone moves on, that IMO is only way that the endless playing of the victim card can stop.

Just my opinion and I in no way say I'm right or wrong, only that from my experience it is the only way someone who has been dispossesed of anything, ever seems to move on from going on about it.

The Voice will just add weight to a claim, because as a nation you are agreeing they are forever owed for dispossesion.
Again only my opinion, but treat the desease, not the symptoms.

 

[Smurf1976]

Let's find a way to give the disadvantage to hand up but any centrally administrated restitution will be an absolute travesty at the highest order and will insure division and resentment.

Life experience tells me there's a great many people who could play the victim card if they chose to. There's plenty with something bad in their background through no fault of their own.

Suffice to say however that if I look at those who've had the greatest success in life, well a key thing is they didn't go down that track. They sought to overcome the problem not dwell upon it.

That's one aspect which goes a long way toward explaining the reasons for the "gap". In Western culture most move on pretty quickly from a setback and there certainly isn't a focus on anything not personally experienced by the individual.

That's part of the barrier, the divide. To a non-Aboriginal person, the idea that something which happened to ancestors prior to my own birth would be a problem for me as an adult just does not compute.

 

[IFocus]

Nikki Savva

Damming stuff but well written.

Niki Savva:
"When Peter Dutton ran for the Liberal leadership in 2018, he twice asked Ken Wyatt to vote for him. Dutton told Wyatt he wanted him on his frontbench. Wyatt told Dutton both times that he would not vote for him. Furthermore, he told him that if he became leader, he would not serve under him, he would quit the ministry.
Beyond expressing concern for the sexual abuse of children, Dutton showed little interest in Indigenous issues, according to Wyatt.
When we spoke a few days ago, Wyatt was as unsurprised as he was unimpressed by Dutton’s conduct of the No campaign in the referendum.
Wyatt dismissed the fevered commentary about Jacinta Nampijinpa Price becoming prime minister. He reckons for a leader to succeed, she – or he – must be capable of, and be seen to be working for, all Australians. He believes neither Dutton nor Price has shown they can do that.
Going down in history as two of the people most responsible for destroying a referendum which Wyatt is convinced would help Indigenous people is no qualification for national leadership in Wyatt’s view.
Born on a mission station to a mother who was forced to hand over her wages to bureaucrats then ask for money back to buy essentials, Wyatt was the first Indigenous person to become Indigenous affairs minister under Scott Morrison. He quit the Liberal Party in protest in April.
Clinging to hope that Yes would triumph, Wyatt worried defeat would deter future governments from considering new approaches. He accepts Anthony Albanese would have no mandate to legislate a Voice but pledged he and fellow Yes warriors would not give up fighting for better ways to address Indigenous disadvantage.
In the post-mortems which will inevitably continue for decades, we can and we will blame No campaigners for playing filthy dirty, for putting politics above everything else, for using loudhailers to whistle up the neo-Nazis, racists and bigots with lies and misrepresentations.
The demons unleashed by tactics to foment conflict, for short term political gain at the expense of vulnerable Australians, will live on long after Saturday’s vote.
We can and will blame the Albanese government for choosing the wrong time or the wrong words or for mismanaging the campaign, for doing it now, or even for doing it at all.
The miserable fact is that no matter the wording, the content, or the timing, we were always destined to get to this point. A few Yes campaigners, including Wyatt, firmly believe this.
There was never going to be bipartisanship. Releasing exposure draft legislation would only have given the Noes more ammunition. Legislating the Voice alone would have once again been whitefellas telling blackfellas what was best for them. Delaying the referendum until the next election would have guaranteed the loss of both the election and the referendum.
Yes advocates say the Noes tapped into a deep well of racism, others that the referendum has created a hell of a mess.
The Noes blame Yes for dividing Australia, which is a bit like claiming black is white. They claim it’s the biggest change to the Constitution ever proposed. Wrong. That was the republic. Their most potent argument against that was if it ain’t broke don’t fix it. Those same people, notably Tony Abbott, know this system is broken, offer no solution and instead seek to destroy the Voice by claiming it will encourage “separatism.”
As if such a modest change to set up an advisory body creates a new apartheid. Confronted by tough questioning, they scream bias. In fact, they have had a good run. Too good.
As the most prominent, the most effective and most polarising participant in the black-on-black conflict, Price has called the shots for the Coalition. She says up front what many of them think but few dare to say. The photo of Price acting as barista in a Perth cafe with Dutton smiling awkwardly behind her like a mobile coffee caddy, says it all.
Not only has she has given white folk an excuse to vote no, she has absolved them of any guilt or shame for past wrongs by insisting colonisation had benefited Aboriginal people. Read David Marr’s excellent book Killing for Country and judge for yourself.
Another of the many low points of this campaign was when the media and others perversely condemned Indigenous leader Marcia Langton for calling out racism, rather than condemn the racism itself. We live in dangerous times when Ray Martin cops more abuse from the Noes for using words like dinosaurs and dickheads than does a neo-Nazi who threatens to kill a senator.
Dutton questioning the integrity of an institution as highly regarded as the Australian Electoral Commission was inexcusable. It opened the door wide for conspiracy theorists to harass and abuse the commission and its staff.
This is a defining moment for Australia. Almost every other country on earth has reached an accommodation with its original inhabitants. We should at least be honest enough to admit that if we don’t, this debate will have simply exposed what lurks just beneath the surface. Blaming Albanese for that is bizarre. Ultimately, responsibility for the result and everything which delivers it resides with us.
The central issue, as it was on the republic, is not what the world thinks of us, as important as that is. It is what we think of each other.
Come Sunday, we will either see ourselves as measured, generous people, ready to set aside the daily woes of our lives – only for a few minutes – to consider the place and state of Indigenous Australians, prepared to say yes to something which will cost us nothing, but could measurably improve their lives.
Or as a frightened, resentful people unable or unwilling to see through the scares and the lies, prepared to use the ballot box to punish the government and in the process punish Indigenous people trapped in cycles of poverty and abuse."