The Voice

[Sean K]

To late I already do, if in the unlikely case some aspect of the Voice goes to the high court then it will get sorted same as the Eddie Mabo case did as yet the sky hasn't fallen in.

The Mabo case had further reaching aspects than the Voice ever will.

We might not actually see most of the forced negotiation and compromise that will have to occur between The Voice with the executive and parliament. That's part of the problem too. Legislation get's debated in the Lower and Upper Houses and it's live on TV. Usually quite fun to watch, I have question time on one of my screens whenever it's going. But we won't necessarily see what The Voice is doing and how it influences the parliament. I suppose that's no different to independants, Teals or Greens doing their back room deals. The only difference is, they were elected and represent a constituency through the democratic process.

 

[mullokintyre]

The example fails to address the issues, fails to address the injustices of the past, fails to change the status and recognition of 1st nations.

The example is a false equiveillance is it not?

The assumption then is that the voice will do all those things, and i am fearful that this is what first nations will expect and be more than disappointed with another talkfest. The government you keep telling us will be obliged to listen, but they do not have to act, unless by some chance the courts decide that they should.
There are some who expect better health outcomes, better education, better housing, better transport, better access to water, better everything, but all of this has to be paid for.
I don't think many of the first nations people who live on country have the slightest clue as to how wealth is generated.
They just assume the government can and should provide more full stop.
That will not happen to the level that things will change in any real manner.
As a few of us have suggested, the only ones to benefit will be the mostly white carpetbaggers who clip everything on the way through.
First nations people have been sold a dog.
And in all this , it will somehow be the fault of non labour, for "failing to show leadership".
Mick

 

[rederob]

We might not actually see most of the forced negotiation and compromise that will have to occur between The Voice with the executive and parliament.

That's because there won't be any!
You might do well to read about how the Voice is proposed to operate.

That's part of the problem too. Legislation get's debated in the Lower and Upper Houses and it's live on TV. Usually quite fun to watch, I have question time on one of my screens whenever it's going. But we won't necessarily see what The Voice is doing and how it influences the parliament.

That's because it won't!
You are proving how little you know with each post.

The only difference is, they were elected and represent a constituency through the democratic process.

Again, you don't seem to know that there will be a democratic process to elect members to the representative body known as the Voice.

 

[Macquack]

Oh for gods sake get a grip man and read the intent of the Voice not fu(king Murdoch.

Its nothing like or even close to your and other comments made here seriously.

It will come down to what is passed through parliament and made public unlike now.

The public will be able to scrutineer how it functions etc unlike now.

The gap report each year will be able to reference the voice...yep unlike now.

Geeezus its such a modest proposal as to what should happen (which and your cohort (mean that in the nicest way) would oppose).

Sigh, sorry if any feelings were harmed in this exchange.

I was just thinking, I don't like to wear out my brain.

To all the doomsayers who are predicting the end of the world as us ockers know it. Can't we just have another referendum if it all goes to shite? For example "Brexit".

 

[rederob]

The government you keep telling us will be obliged to listen, but they do not have to act, unless by some chance the courts decide that they should.

The courts will not have that power: read the proposed words of the Constitution question.

There are some who expect better health outcomes, better education, better housing, better transport, better access to water, better everything, but all of this has to be paid for.

Given that's the same for non-first nations people, your point lacks substance. Moreover, the cost of neglect in those areas is far greater than the cost of the remedy... just look at the health costs alone for first nations peoples.

I don't think many of the first nations people who live on country have the slightest clue as to how wealth is generated.

Really! You think they are black and stupid do you?

They just assume the government can and should provide more full stop.

No they don't. Have you ever spoken with first nations peoples about the role of government?

That will not happen to the level that things will change in any real manner.

How do you know?

And in all this , it will somehow be the fault of non labour, for "failing to show leadership"

They should read this thread and be alarmed at the level of ignorance that prevails.

 

[mullokintyre]

The courts will not have that power: read the proposed words of the Constitution question.

How many times do we have to say it?
The separation of powers says that the representative executive cannot deem anything to be no testiciable.
If some entity or person makes a case to the High court and they accept it, thats it.
Has happened before, will happen again.

Given that's the same for non-first nations people, your point lacks substance. Moreover, the cost of neglect in those areas is far greater than the cost of the remedy... just look at the health costs alone for first nations peoples.

Exactly what I said. From Australian Institute of Health and Welfare The total health expenditure per person for Indigenous Australians was 1.3 times that of non-Indigenous Australians in 2015–16. As has become the norm, these figures are ridiculously out of date, buts tha'ts the public service for you.

Really! You think they are black and stupid do you?

No you are stupid one. First nations people are culturally different, not stupid, not better, not worse just different. Their entire cultural history of hunters and gatheres has not embedded the western concept of working for wages to provide the things you and your family do not have. Drugs, alchohol, coke, chips were never part of their diet and it is one of the main reasons why they have problems. Their bush medicine , effective as it is, was never meant to cope with these western diseases. But so many of these issues are through choices made by them. They are the ones who have to change their lifestyles, no amount of throwing health money at it will change it.

No they don't. Have you ever spoken with first nations peoples about the role of government?

I have, and I have seen them speaking in the media.

How do you know?

Unlike your greatself, i don't "know".
However, history is agreat teacher.
i can look at the histroy of past efforts and come to a reasonable conclusion.
You are quite entitled to disagree.

They should read this thread and be alarmed at the level of ignorance that prevails.

As has been suggested on a few previous occasions, you perhaps need to apply the same rules to yourself that you so stridently demand of others.
I don't see this thread getting anywhere further.
Mick

 

[IFocus]

The assumption then is that the voice will do all those things,

No, no one expects that the Voice will do that its a very very small step in the right direction.

and i am fearful that this is what first nations will expect and be more than disappointed with another talkfest.

Its simply not the case as above first nations have been advocating for generations with no result again very small step and they know it more than anyone.

The government you keep telling us will be obliged to listen, but they do not have to act, unless by some chance the courts decide that they should.

There is no way a conservative or Labor government would allow that to happen if you believe it to be mount the case.

There are some who expect better health outcomes, better education, better housing, better transport, better access to water, better everything, but all of this has to be paid for.

It is now already but where does the money go?

I don't think many of the first nations people who live on country have the slightest clue as to how wealth is generated.
They just assume the government can and should provide more full stop.

Not my own experience but will listen if you know different.

That will not happen to the level that things will change in any real manner.
As a few of us have suggested, the only ones to benefit will be the mostly white carpetbaggers who clip everything on the way through.
First nations people have been sold a dog.

It could be argued that's the case now.

And in all this , it will somehow be the fault of non labour, for "failing to show leadership".
Mick

If this fails absolutely can be laid at the feet of conservatives.

 

[IFocus]

We might not actually see most of the forced negotiation and compromise that will have to occur between The Voice with the executive and parliament. That's part of the problem too. Legislation get's debated in the Lower and Upper Houses and it's live on TV. Usually quite fun to watch, I have question time on one of my screens whenever it's going. But we won't necessarily see what The Voice is doing and how it influences the parliament. I suppose that's no different to independants, Teals or Greens doing their back room deals. The only difference is, they were elected and represent a constituency through the democratic process.

Haynes actually explains this in the links provided.

Vested interests make / give input to the government departments long before policy is formed or legislation is drawn up exactly as you describe as forced negotiations or compromise.

Unlike cashed up vested interests (banks / mining / media etc) that run campaigns against governments (remember that poor lady on the back of the truck railing against a mining tax) make donations to parties etc the government of the day can accept or reject submissions from the Voice and it will be made public.

This is a long way away from your comments which I find hard to understand where it comes from given the current public knowledge.

 

[rederob]

If some entity or person makes a case to the High court and they accept it, thats it.
Has happened before, will happen again.

Except the point you made cannot be decided by a court. Courts cannot direct a Parliament to do anything as courts decide on laws.

Exactly what I said. From Australian Institute of Health and Welfare The total health expenditure per person for Indigenous Australians was 1.3 times that of non-Indigenous Australians in 2015–16. As has become the norm, these figures are ridiculously out of date, buts tha'ts the public service for you.

Actually your point was "but all of this has to be paid for." So how is that different for any health service?
My point was that the Voice can turn this around by reducing health spend for first nations.

No you are stupid one. First nations people are culturally different, not stupid, not better, not worse just different. Their entire cultural history of hunters and gatheres has not embedded the western concept of working for wages to provide the things you and your family do not have.

This is 2023. Your point was valid prior to white settlement but you skipped over 200 years of history.
When I was growing up in Shark Bay in the 60s a common phrase was 'worked like a black fella" as the locals worked harder than anyone else.

As has been suggested on a few previous occasions, you perhaps need to apply the same rules to yourself that you so stridently demand of others.
I don't see this thread getting anywhere further.

I have constantly corrected posters who have failed to understand most things about the Voice. If I got anything wrong, then correct me.
In the past I had jobs that required me to visit ATSI communities in an official capacity and speak with locals and their elders, so I can comment with first hand knowledge on how ignorant many here are with what they say.

 

[SirRumpole]

I have constantly corrected posters who have failed to understand most things about the Voice. If I got anything wrong, then correct me.
In the past I had jobs that required me to visit ATSI communities in an official capacity and speak with locals and their elders, so I can comment with first hand knowledge on how ignorant many here are with what they say.

So ATSI people have always been consulted in your experience without a Constitutional change ?

This is is way it should be, it doesn't need an enshrinement in the Constitution to just get out and talk to people.

If in your experience it's made no difference in the past, why should it in the future ?

 

[IFocus]

​

The reality that supports the recognition of the Voice​

By Fred Chaney

The end of Australian segregation and the admission to full citizenship after general exclusion since 1788 was a triumph for liberalism and met long time Aboriginal demands for equality.

There is another reality that supports recognition and the Voice. Since 1788, governments have had many different approaches dealing with the original inhabitants. They have waged war on them, segregated them, tried to assimilate them, taken their children their land and their means of sustenance. They have pronounced them to be dying out (remember soothing the pillow of the dying race) and denied them as part of our population and denied them places in our schools and workplaces. It is hard to imagine what more we could have done to see them gone from the face of the earth. But the fact of the matter is whatever has been done to them they have endured. With extraordinary courage and persistence they have survived and maintained their various collective identities.

The reality that supports the recognition of the Voice - Pearls and Irritations

Indigenous Australians share citizenship with all of us with distinctive rights. This and other realities support recognition and the Voice.

johnmenadue.com

 

[wayneL]

​

The reality that supports the recognition of the Voice​

By Fred Chaney

The end of Australian segregation and the admission to full citizenship after general exclusion since 1788 was a triumph for liberalism and met long time Aboriginal demands for equality.

There is another reality that supports recognition and the Voice. Since 1788, governments have had many different approaches dealing with the original inhabitants. They have waged war on them, segregated them, tried to assimilate them, taken their children their land and their means of sustenance. They have pronounced them to be dying out (remember soothing the pillow of the dying race) and denied them as part of our population and denied them places in our schools and workplaces. It is hard to imagine what more we could have done to see them gone from the face of the earth. But the fact of the matter is whatever has been done to them they have endured. With extraordinary courage and persistence they have survived and maintained their various collective identities.

The reality that supports the recognition of the Voice - Pearls and Irritations

Indigenous Australians share citizenship with all of us with distinctive rights. This and other realities support recognition and the Voice.

johnmenadue.com

​

The reality that supports the recognition of the Voice​

By Fred Chaney

The end of Australian segregation and the admission to full citizenship after general exclusion since 1788 was a triumph for liberalism and met long time Aboriginal demands for equality.

There is another reality that supports recognition and the Voice. Since 1788, governments have had many different approaches dealing with the original inhabitants. They have waged war on them, segregated them, tried to assimilate them, taken their children their land and their means of sustenance. They have pronounced them to be dying out (remember soothing the pillow of the dying race) and denied them as part of our population and denied them places in our schools and workplaces. It is hard to imagine what more we could have done to see them gone from the face of the earth. But the fact of the matter is whatever has been done to them they have endured. With extraordinary courage and persistence they have survived and maintained their various collective identities.

The reality that supports the recognition of the Voice - Pearls and Irritations

Indigenous Australians share citizenship with all of us with distinctive rights. This and other realities support recognition and the Voice.

johnmenadue.com

If all that as true and lets just take that for granted without contesting any of the argument, I still don't see how that warrants changing the Constitution. It doesn't remedy a damned thing as per all the arguments already stated.

 

[rederob]

So ATSI people have always been consulted in your experience without a Constitutional change ?

There have been ineffective processes in place for as long as I can remember.
That's why the Voice has now been proposed by the very people that were supposed to have been heard.

This is is way it should be, it doesn't need an enshrinement in the Constitution to just get out and talk to people.

Yes it does, because we otherwise get the status quo and not the many additional reforms that are being committed.

If in your experience it's made no difference in the past, why should it in the future ?

That's been covered so many times here.
How about you try to understand the nature of the Voice proposal which is one element of the Uluru Statement from the Heart.
Your opposition to the Voice seems enshrined in wilful ignorance.

 

[SirRumpole]

Your opposition to the Voice seems enshrined in wilful ignorance.

No, my view is enshrined in the belief of equal rights under the Constitution.

 

[rederob]

No, my view is enshrined in the belief of equal rights under the Constitution.

Then where is your problem with the Voice?

The Voice is a process that is about better solutions to issues affecting numerous different ATSI cultures by getting their input.
It has absolutely nothing to do with changing anyone's rights.

 

[SirRumpole]

Then where is your problem with the Voice?

The Voice is a process that is about better solutions to issues affecting numerous different ATSI cultures by getting their input.
It has absolutely nothing to do with changing anyone's rights.

Oh really ? I suggest you read the proposal.

If no rights changes were involved there is no need for a referendum.

 

[rederob]

Oh really ? I suggest you read the proposal.

I have read it and I can only assume you again have little idea about what the Voice entails.
It's an advisory body that does not impact the issue of rights in way shape or form.
You continue to fail basic comprehension.

 

[wayneL]

Although the commies will frame it in a different light, this is a slim ray of hope for the Liberal Party... and more importantly, for our nation.

 

[Knobby22]

I just think it is good that the Liberals now have a position rather than just playing with it.
And in the end, it is a referendum, it is what most people want in each state. if it gets up then people wanted it. if it doesn't then they didn't.
I really have no idea how this is going to go.

 

[Sean K]

Poor Linda Burney was not born with a golden tongue. I'm not sure a radio career was ever an option. It's like she's drunk, delivering an eulogy, and about to break into tears at any moment. Inspiring stuff.