Knobby22
Mmmmmm 2nd breakfast
- Joined
- 13 October 2004
- Posts
- 9,824
- Reactions
- 6,805
As with most "fact checks" it's not about untruths but rather it's about omissions.Fact checking ... But who needs facts in a debate on opinion ?
Legislate it first then when the kinks are ironed out and people are comfortable, then amend the constitution.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.
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.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.
There's multiple reasons to vote either side of the vote.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.
Gets interesting from the 4 minute mark -
I'm still of the belief they should be compensated for their loss and suffering, as would anybody who suffered the same fate.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.
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.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.
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.
How, what shape should this compensation take.I'm still of the belief they should be compensated for their loss and suffering, as would anybody who suffered the same fate.
I have to agree, though not "violently", a word which i don't think should be e used even in rhetoric.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.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, 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.
I don,t know how the last post ended up like that. Lol bloody phones.
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.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.
Nikki Savva
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?