Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

The Voice

Jump to new
I see this type of assistance as far more important to help break the cycle of negativity and victim hood than another bunch of snouts in the trough in Canberra

Indigenous ownership​

Offering a wide variety of affordable fruit and vegetables, dairy, meat, fuel and white goods, as well as a chef and a place to sit, the Normanton supermarket had earned its name as one of the "flashest joints" in town, according to Mr Pascoe

The building has also been designed to outlast cyclones and runs on solar energy.

Ninety per cent of the employees are Indigenous and the store itself is owned equally by Aboriginal organisation Bynoe Community Advancement Cooperative Society (CACS) and the Gulf Regional Economic Aboriginal Trust (GREAT).

www.abc.net.au

Before this supermarket opened, residents of this small community were making a 150km round trip to buy groceries

Normanton's new Indigenous-owned supermarket can outlast cyclones, runs on solar energy and has been created to ensure the survival of some of the most remote communities in northern Queensland.
www.abc.net.au www.abc.net.au
 
wayneL said:
From Jacinta Price:

The Uluru Statement from the Heart, signed by only 0.03% of the Indigenous population, demanding constitutionally enshrined identity politics – that’s unifying and representative of the entire Indigenous population.

A democratically elected Senator and Aboriginal woman, representing a Territory with a population that’s almost 30% Indigenous, who has a long-held and well documented belief that ALL Australians are equal – that’s divisive and ignorant.

Makes sense…

Of course it’s rubbish, and they know it too.

And it didn’t take much for the charade to drop and their true colours to show.

Somehow the Voice has made it acceptable for privileged blokes to attack Aboriginal women over their stance on Indigenous issues – and the lefties are all on board.

I mean, we all knew this would happen.

You can’t oppose a constitutional gravy train for those after taxpayer funded salaries, and not expect a few fireworks – but wow, that was quicker than I was expecting!

We don’t even have details on Albo’s Voice to Parliament and already its backers have sunk to name calling, intimidation tactics and racially motivated abuse to help bully their way to what they want.

When the Nationals stood before Australia and declared our opposition to the Voice, we did so because we knew no unelected body could speak for ALL Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians.

How could it? How could a body of 24 people cherry-picked from the nearly 900,000 Indigenous Australians hope to speak for all of them without even consulting them first? It couldn’t.

And every day since that announcement, the Voice proponents have come after me in the media, telling everyone that I don’t speak for them, I don’t represent them, my views aren’t their views.

THANK YOU! YOU’VE MADE MY POINT!

We are not the same! We think differently! We have different views, opinions, beliefs, ideas and plans.

We are not a monolithic people destined to agree on everything!

We vote for leaders who best represent our individual views and we send them to speak those views in the nation’s parliament.

Just like every other Australian.

I know it, you know it, they know it.

That’s why Albo and his Referendum Engagement Group are changing the rules for referendums just in time for their Voice vote.

They’re throwing buckets of taxpayer cash at the Voice, they have the backing and big bucks from woke corporations and sycophants, they’ve played the game to build their Yes campaign, now they’re changing the rules to try and stop the No cause.

It’s undemocratic, cynical and dishonest.

Labor has changed the referendum rules to saturate the country with “education materials” on the Voice.

The Yes campaign will ramp up its bullying, gaslighting and emotional blackmail tactics – anything to get their own spoiled-brat kind of way.

And while we all waste our time and government money on this, nothing gets done to address the REAL problems.
Click to expand...

That's actually very disingenuous from Jacinta saying this "We don’t even have details on Albo’s Voice to Parliament" then condemning it.
 
IFocus said:
That's actually very disingenuous from Jacinta saying this "We don’t even have details on Albo’s Voice to Parliament" then condemning it.
Click to expand...
Not really, as an analogy, one can be against the idea of a republic without knowing the details of any proposal.
 
Sean K said:
She has called herself that for as long as she's been in the media/politics.
Click to expand...
I don't remember the commentators emphasising that, when she was first elected, whereas now it seems to be used on a more regular basis.
But I am only going from memory, so I will stand corrected, my apologies.
 
IFocus said:
That's actually very disingenuous from Jacinta saying this "We don’t even have details on Albo’s Voice to Parliament" then condemning it.
Click to expand...

I think she's mainly condemning the lack of detail and that it's undemocratic, which it is.

We don't really know how influential this unelected body is going to be in changing legislation to suit Aboriginal concerns on just about anything. And, how is any government going to oppose suggested changes and additions to laws to suit this body? Too many known unknowns for me.

I'd like to see how anything similar to this has gone through other governments. Not sure if Canada, US or NZ have already tried this and how it's gone.
 
sptrawler said:
I don't remember the commentators emphasising that, when she was first elected, whereas now it seems to be used on a more regular basis.
But I am only going from memory, so I will stand corrected, my apologies.
Click to expand...

She's been popping up on Kenny fairly regularly for the past 2-3 years and she's always called herself half Celtic. You probably needed to be a Kenny watcher...
 
sptrawler said:
Yes, the only Kenny I've seen, was the portable toilet bloke.
Click to expand...

It's funny, Chris Kenny was on the panel as one of the architects of The Voice, and he loves Jacinta Price. Still gets her on to talk about it but completely disagrees with her. Kenny is pretty much the last centrist on Sky News during the day before it gets dark.
 
Sean K said:
It's funny, Chris Kenny was on the panel as one of the architects of The Voice, and he loves Jacinta Price. Still gets her on to talk about it but completely disagrees with her. Kenny is pretty much the last centrist on Sky News during the day before it gets dark.
Click to expand...
Oh, I don't watch Sky news, or any other news, other than some SBS. Never heard of Chris Kenny, but I do agree with your take on the voice subject, it is difficult to rubber stamp a blank piece of paper.
Also it seems counter productive to cause a deliberate division in the general population, when the goal is to assimilate, accept, integrate and be inclusive of all members of society.
Time will tell, as usual.
 
Might be worth checking out The Voice website.

I can totally understand a reflex attitude that rejects the idea of First Nation people being recognised in the Constitution as having an opportunity to formally speak to the Parliament and Executive.

Just as start from the website consider this.

0th Jul 2022

News Article

In his address to the Garma Festival on 30 July 2022, the Prime Minister, the Hon Anthony Albanese MP, proposed a referendum question and constitutional amendments, as the next step in the discussion about constitutional change.
Our starting point is a recommendation to add three sentences to the Constitution, in recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders as the First Peoples of Australia:
  1. There shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice.
  3. The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice may make representations to Parliament and the Executive Government on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples.
  5. The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws with respect to the composition, functions, powers and procedures of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice.
These draft provisions can be seen as the next step in the discussion about constitutional change.
This may not be the final form of words – but I think it’s how we can get to a final form of words.
In the same way, alongside these provisions, I would like us to present the Australian people with the clearest possible referendum question. We should consider asking our fellow Australians something as simple, but something as clear, as this:
Do you support an alteration to the Constitution that establishes an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice?
Click to expand...

Prime Minister proposes draft referendum question and constitutional amendments | Indigenous Voice

voice.niaa.gov.au voice.niaa.gov.au
 
There are concerns that this public conversation about whether First Nation people (or other colloquialism . ) should have a direct voice to government will end up like the marriage equality plebiscite. That wasn't very edifying.

‘Toxic rhetoric’: marriage equality plebiscite offers ugly lessons for Indigenous voice to parliament referendum​

Support and self-care will be vital during the campaign, which could stir up ‘perfect storm for fear and hate’

Professor of Indigenous Studies at Macquarie University, Sandy O’Sullivan, says the 2017 marriage equality plebiscite offers some ugly lessons for the nation’s future referendum.

“It split up families, it affected people in their workplaces. There was this absolutely toxic, nasty rhetoric that we could easily see happen in exactly the same way,” the Wiradjuri person says.

They say for queer First Nations people, who have already been part of a national debate with painful homophobic and hate speech, disagreements and harmful comments take a big toll.

O’Sullivan, who has a strong online presence, was overwhelmed by the vitriol directed towards them for their stance during the same-sex marriage plebiscite.

“We were facing a whole lot of negative misinformation. All this misinformation from mostly non-Indigenous people and all this negative criticism. It was absolutely toxic. It was incessant, and it was pushing the no vote,” they say.

www.theguardian.com

‘Toxic rhetoric’: marriage equality plebiscite offers ugly lessons for Indigenous voice to parliament referendum

Support and self-care will be vital during the campaign, which could stir up ‘perfect storm for fear and hate’
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
 
basilio said:
There are concerns that this public conversation about whether First Nation people (or other colloquialism . ) should have a direct voice to government will end up like the marriage equality plebiscite. That wasn't very edifying.

‘Toxic rhetoric’: marriage equality plebiscite offers ugly lessons for Indigenous voice to parliament referendum​

Support and self-care will be vital during the campaign, which could stir up ‘perfect storm for fear and hate’

Professor of Indigenous Studies at Macquarie University, Sandy O’Sullivan, says the 2017 marriage equality plebiscite offers some ugly lessons for the nation’s future referendum.

“It split up families, it affected people in their workplaces. There was this absolutely toxic, nasty rhetoric that we could easily see happen in exactly the same way,” the Wiradjuri person says.

They say for queer First Nations people, who have already been part of a national debate with painful homophobic and hate speech, disagreements and harmful comments take a big toll.

O’Sullivan, who has a strong online presence, was overwhelmed by the vitriol directed towards them for their stance during the same-sex marriage plebiscite.

“We were facing a whole lot of negative misinformation. All this misinformation from mostly non-Indigenous people and all this negative criticism. It was absolutely toxic. It was incessant, and it was pushing the no vote,” they say.

www.theguardian.com

‘Toxic rhetoric’: marriage equality plebiscite offers ugly lessons for Indigenous voice to parliament referendum

Support and self-care will be vital during the campaign, which could stir up ‘perfect storm for fear and hate’
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
Click to expand...
I haven't heard much about the voice at all, maybe there will be some educational advertising done to enlighten those who don't watch a lot of T.V?
As for identifying as Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander,my youngest son says he does, but I don't know where he came up with the connection from.
So IMO, the first thing would have to be some way of actually identifying those who are and those who just say they are. :2twocents
 
basilio said:
There are concerns that this public conversation about whether First Nation people (or other colloquialism . ) should have a direct voice to government will end up like the marriage equality plebiscite. That wasn't very edifying.

‘Toxic rhetoric’: marriage equality plebiscite offers ugly lessons for Indigenous voice to parliament referendum​

Support and self-care will be vital during the campaign, which could stir up ‘perfect storm for fear and hate’

Professor of Indigenous Studies at Macquarie University, Sandy O’Sullivan, says the 2017 marriage equality plebiscite offers some ugly lessons for the nation’s future referendum.

“It split up families, it affected people in their workplaces. There was this absolutely toxic, nasty rhetoric that we could easily see happen in exactly the same way,” the Wiradjuri person says.

They say for queer First Nations people, who have already been part of a national debate with painful homophobic and hate speech, disagreements and harmful comments take a big toll.

O’Sullivan, who has a strong online presence, was overwhelmed by the vitriol directed towards them for their stance during the same-sex marriage plebiscite.

“We were facing a whole lot of negative misinformation. All this misinformation from mostly non-Indigenous people and all this negative criticism. It was absolutely toxic. It was incessant, and it was pushing the no vote,” they say.

www.theguardian.com

‘Toxic rhetoric’: marriage equality plebiscite offers ugly lessons for Indigenous voice to parliament referendum

Support and self-care will be vital during the campaign, which could stir up ‘perfect storm for fear and hate’
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
Click to expand...
The difference is the Marriage equality bill was a simple question, whether the law should be changed to remove the words " marriage shall be between a man and a woman". It did not require any constitutional change, and was pretty much immune from judicial interpretation.
There was never any requirement for a plebiscite, the law could have been altered in the same way Howard did to create the problem in the first place.
The Voice(TM) may or may not require changes to the constitution, we do not know any details of how The Voice (TM) is to be choses, whether by vote, by appointment, or some other mechanism.l we do not know how the subset of citizens known as First nationswill be determined, and who will verify their First Nationhood.
the biggest problem I see is in the wording of the third sentence from Albo.
  1. The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws with respect to the composition, functions, powers and procedures of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice
This sentence gives Parliament greater powers in the makeup and execution of the voice than it gives parliament over the rest of the citizens.
Once it is enshrined in the constitution, it gives parliament unfettered powers to incrementally increase the power and infleunce of "the Voice(TM) over time, without any recourse to the constitution.
mick
 
mullokintyre said:
  1. The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws with respect to the composition, functions, powers and procedures of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice
This sentence gives Parliament greater powers in the makeup and execution of the voice than it gives parliament over the rest of the citizens.
Once it is enshrined in the constitution, it gives parliament unfettered powers to incrementally increase the power and influence of "the Voice(TM) over time, without any recourse to the constitution.
mick
Click to expand...
That is a very open ended and far reaching statement IMO, who draws the line as to the amount the power the 'Voice', has over current civil laws and their application? Or could it override our current civil laws, to say something like private land ownership?
Or aren't the two connected at all and the 'Voice' is only a honourary recognition of term of residence, not of original ownership?
Interesting subject IMO.
 
mullokintyre said:
The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws with respect to the composition, functions, powers and procedures of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice
Click to expand...

Now the talk is about power, when we all thought it was about consultation.

Of course indigenous people should be consulted about matters that effect them (although that seems a fairly wide definition, almost all legislation affects everyone in the community), but consultation should be a normal part of government. eg if you change legislation affecting business they are consulted and sometimes consumer groups aren't.

So will the indigenous community have rights to be consulted when others don't have that right ?

We will see.
 
Well that has moved quickly. So somehow posters have taken a draft suggestion from the PM extracted the word "powers" from it shortened it to "power" (quite a different meaning in that context) and are concerned that the First Nations community will now have POWER over the country.

In the context of the draft suggestion Parliament will decide on the structure of The Voice. These are the procedural issues that need to be addressed whenever a new body is constituted.

The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws with respect to the composition, functions, powers and procedures of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice

Australia never signed a treaty with the Aboriginal community. We just come in, took over the country and knocked off anyone who stood in our way. I suggest this idea is meant to formally recognise the fact that Australia was originally and still is the home of the Aboriginal community and that this original community should have a legally recognised voice in the country.

The difference between the Aboriginal community and any other section of our society is the matter of prior ownership. No other group in our society can make that claim.

Is that a reasonable idea ?
 

Similar threads

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