The Voice

[mullokintyre]

There may no longer be Welcome to Country ceremonies. We will see hardening of attitudes and we will see a resistance movement.

Thats an outcome I would welcome.
Like many others, I do not need to be welcomed to my own country.
Its the same with all the pointless acknowledgement of elders past present and emerging that now starts every government and/or Qango event, and is written at the bottom of every publication.
I sit on a number of local government boards and committees in our shire, and despite there being no first nations/aboriginal; people on these committees we have these pointless virtue signalling statements.
Its as stupid as opening them with the Lords Prayer when there are no Christians on the committee.
We do have some muslims on one of them, but we do not recite any verses fro the Koran.
Mick

 

[Knobby22]

Thats an outcome I would welcome.
Like many others, I do not need to be welcomed to my own country.
Its the same with all the pointless acknowledgement of elders past present and emerging that now starts every government and/or Qango event, and is written at the bottom of every publication.
I sit on a number of local government boards and committees in our shire, and despite there being no first nations/aboriginal; people on these committees we have these pointless virtue signalling statements.
Its as stupid as opening them with the Lords Prayer when there are no Christians on the committee.
We do have some muslims on one of them, but we do not recite any verses fro the Koran.
Mick

I agree. It has completely gone out of control. The welcome to country should only be used for rare national events and when dealing directly with the aboriginal group. It doesn't belong in every single meeting. Also acknowledging the elders is just lip service and has become very annoying.

It's copied from NZ, but they have a much better balance.

 

[Sean K]

The reason I heard on the radio from some of the indigenous aboriginals is that they want it in the Constitution as in their experience is they don’t get listened to.

Governments are paternalistic in their treatment and solutions.

Decisions are made and then the PM or minister turn up in the outback and do a media scrum.

Also, who says the listening will occur in Canberra? That is not what I understood.

How it works depends on the legislation and really that's what the Coalition and Labor should be concentrating on and arguing about. I understand a lot of thought has gone into how it should work so it isn't a body in Canberra.

It's disappointing that Dutton has dealt himself out of the process and also damaged himself in the process.

If this gets passed you can be sure Albanese will make this work and make himself look good.

If not, Dutton will be a wrecker and either way he will be gone well before the next election.

The model proposed in the Langton-Calma report recommended Voice bodies at local, regional, state and federal levels. Exactly how that plays out will be up to government legislation. Still could look like anything.

I see the local and regional voices as the ones actually making a difference, if any. The federal one will just be an elitist talk fest, purely symbolic and a waste of money.

 

[Sean K]

Maybe the first High Court case.

It quite clearly contravenes the Act. But does the constitution override the Act? This is a legal time bomb.

 

[IFocus]

There is nothing to stop politicians listening now.

Both Albanese and Dutton have been out in the back blocks visiting remote communities, the residents have the opportunity to voice their ideas face to face.

Why would a body based in Canberra be any better ?

Abbott went one better used to spend weeks or a month in a community.

What came as a result of that = 0

Sorry forgot great photo opportunities.

 

[SirRumpole]

Abbott went one better used to spend weeks or a month in a community.

What came as a result of that = 0

Sorry forgot great photo opportunities.

Well I don't see why a Constitutional body will change anything.

If the pollies don't want to listen, they won't listen to the Voice.

 

[macca]

We had a discussion last night with some City holiday makers and they seemed unaware that there are literally dozens of organisations already in Alice Springs working with Aboriginal people.

When I told them that for decades there have been 100s of people working all through the Outback trying to improve the life of Aboriginals they said well we thought there "would be some"

Adding another layer at the top cannot possibly achieve any better result

What most people do not do is drill down to the ground level action, as an example, what does and Aboriginal person who is a truck driver in Sydney expect from his Land Council?

He may want assistance for his son who is going to Uni

Compare that to someone born in Darwin who prefers to sit around and drink with all the other doleys (who may be a variety of skin colours.)

What does he expect from his land council, obviously their expectations may differ

To think that 24 people can sit in Canberra and make national laws that will assist All people is simply replicating what has proven to be impossible.

The only answer is localised assistance that can be tailored to suit the area, hopefully we can find some Aboriginal people who will accept the challenge to run the clinics.

 

[Sean K]

Well I don't see why a Constitutional body will change anything.

If the pollies don't want to listen, they won't listen to the Voice.

The only difference now will be that the Voice can go to the media and say 'hey, we told the ATO that Aboriginals should pay half the tax of non-Aboriginals and they didn't do anything.' If pollies don't listen, then the Voice will just hit No 1 on speed dial - the ABC.

 

[macca]

Well I don't see why a Constitutional body will change anything.

If the pollies don't want to listen, they won't listen to the Voice.

But, if the Voice gets up they can take everything to court so we end up in a blackmail situation.

The pollies have been listening for years, we currently spend $100 million a DAY on Aboriginal Affairs.

Lots of meetings, lots of flying around the place, plenty of local work being done by well meaning people trying to prevent health problems like diabetes because of poor nutrition But it falls on deaf ears.

I was in a roadhouse in Elliott NT and the shop assistant was talking to a customer

" I want hot chips" "the Doctor has asked me not to sell you hot chips because you are sick"
"I want hot chips" "how about you have a hamburger instead"
"I want F ....... HOT CHIPS" " OK"

She then turned to me and said the Police had asked her to try but after 3 times she Had to sell them or it is racial discimination

 

[rederob]

The model proposed in the Langton-Calma report recommended Voice bodies at local, regional, state and federal levels. Exactly how that plays out will be up to government legislation. Still could look like anything.

Actually it will look like separate levels of voices, as described.

I see the local and regional voices as the ones actually making a difference, if any.

That idea is unsound.
These levels have no power.
They have no capacity for research, cannot prioritise needs across mobs, are not linked with policy makers and would rely on local members for representation, which has been proven to not work!

The federal one will just be an elitist talk fest, purely symbolic and a waste of money.

On the contrary.
Talk fests occur at grass roots and much later in Parliament.
As for "elist", I suggest you get a dictionary and learn what the word means. Elected representatives of the Voice will be putting forward ideas to improve ATSI policies based on grass roots feedback. That is neither symbolic nor a waste of money.
The Voice is a holistic approach to ATSI policy that coordinates, integrates and prioritises issues being addressed. Equally important will be its capacity for research to ensure government receives practical, informed and, if necessary, costed proposals for consideration. If Parliament does its job properly it will be able to reallocate functions and people from various departments and agencies to the Voice, thereby reducing duplication and achieving considerable cost offsets.

The idea that it's a waste of money enacting better processes for making policies that are likely to be more effective for ATSI peoples does not wash.

 

[SirRumpole]

On the contrary!
Parliaments make decisions about rights.
The Voice has no "power" beyond the effect it has on decision makers.
This has been explained so many times yet clearly is not understood.

I Can't resist pointing out your inconsistency yet again.

Above you contend the Voice will have no power, yet here you complain that the regional voices have no power.

"That idea is unsound.
These levels have no power."

So will the Voice have power or not ?

 

[rederob]

Above you contend the Voice will have no power, yet here you complain that the regional voices have no power.

Those levels are unlikely to have any power - ie, an ability to act officially - to work with government on policy development, coordination or integration. Those mechanics will be determined by Parliament.

So will the Voice have power or not ?

It will have what I have explained.
What powers are you talking about that make my comments inconsistent?

 

[wayneL]

I notice that increasingly the proponents of the yes campaign a regressing to ad hominem argument rather than objective discussion... especially so against those indigenous who are against the proposition.

Those in favour of *equal* treatment of all under the constitution, including those indigenous with such opinions, are labelled as bigots and racists.

Wow! Equal opportunity is racist?

Personally, I am strongly in favour of equal opportunity for all persons in our country whether white, indigenous, or some other shade beige/brown.

Equal outcomes for all, or equanimity as it is being termed recently, is a totally a toxic idea which will destroy our society, to the detriment of all weather black, white, or anywhere in between.

Those wanting to take advantage of such equal opportunity, will have to have some attributes which will be attracted to others.... Skills, personality, willingness to work, etcetera.

It is our value to others which determines our worth in monetary terms, vis a vis, if you have no value to others whether white, black, or any shade in between, you are going to struggle, sans interference from The nanny state.

Does the Voice address these points? Not from what I can see. I think there are a proportion of indigenous who do need a hand to understand these things...

Grade A virtue signalling from whitefellas isn't going to do that.

 

[IFocus]

I notice that increasingly the proponents of the yes campaign a regressing to ad hominem argument rather than objective discussion... especially so against those indigenous who are against the proposition.

Those in favour of *equal* treatment of all under the constitution, including those indigenous with such opinions, are labelled as bigots and racists.

Wow! Equal opportunity is racist?

Personally, I am strongly in favour of equal opportunity for all persons in our country whether white, indigenous, or some other shade beige/brown.

Equal outcomes for all, or equanimity as it is being termed recently, is a totally a toxic idea which will destroy our society, to the detriment of all weather black, white, or anywhere in between.

Those wanting to take advantage of such equal opportunity, will have to have some attributes which will be attracted to others.... Skills, personality, willingness to work, etcetera.

It is our value to others which determines our worth in monetary terms, vis a vis, if you have no value to others whether white, black, or any shade in between, you are going to struggle, sans interference from The nanny state.

Does the Voice address these points? Not from what I can see. I think there are a proportion of indigenous who do need a hand to understand these things...

Grade A virtue signalling from whitefellas isn't going to do that.

And this is where we have long been, progress requires change and back bone.

Trying to dress up fear around change as some else in 2023 really doesn't cut it IMHO.

 

[wayneL]

Wtf

And this is where we have long been, progress requires change and back bone.

Trying to dress up fear around change as some else in 2023 really doesn't cut it IMHO.

WTF does that even mean? Just a more subtle ad hom?

 

[Sean K]

Wtf
WTF does that even mean? Just a more subtle ad hom?

The argument for the yes case has been nothing more than 'it's the right thing to do.' The vibe and emotional blackmail permeate every justification for it. Langton saying we won't get a Welcome to Country if we vote no as an example is past comical.

Albo has completely cocked this up. IMO, they should have legislated something first, put it into practice, and then monitored the results over time before going anywhere near the constitution.

 

[wayneL]

Speaking of racism ..

 

[rederob]

The argument for the yes case has been nothing more than 'it's the right thing to do.'

Actually it's based on what came out of the Uluru Statement from the Heart.
Prior to Dutton both the libs and Labor were on board with its main themes.

The vibe and emotional blackmail permeate every justification for it.

Where exactly is this found, except on your say so?

Langton saying we won't get a Welcome to Country if we vote no as an example is past comical.

The Pope doesn't allow the use of condoms!

Albo has completely cocked this up. IMO, they should have legislated something first, put it into practice, and then monitored the results over time before going anywhere near the constitution.

You have not shown any understanding of the Voice, nor of the workings of government. And that's aside from wanting to now blame Albo for something Morrison sat on his hands over, rather than act per his Minister's advice.

Albo is following through on an election promise, so to say he "cocked this up" suggests you don't value what a promise means. Moreover, you cannot legislate Constitutional recognition, so that's another fail on your part. And finally, this is a package deal that ensures ATSI peoples can no longer be overlooked in the development of policies that affect them. I get it that some people don't like this idea, but after a few hundred years of dismal policy failures, it's time for a change.

 

[wayneL]

Some light reading for y'all.

 

[wayneL]

...and the above author's bonafides:

Connolly, Graham | Edmund Barton Chambers