The Voice

Head down to the park opposite the Roebuck, ask what the local indigenous think of the voice.
Are you heading up to Cape leveque, middle lagoon, Lombadina, one arm point?
If you head out to the Broome Port, there is a really big grain storage shed, it was built when the yanks were going to farm the Fitzroy at Camballin and export the harvest. ?
Yet another brain fart, everything kept getting washed away, but they did catch that loony tourist shooting everyone up there in the 1980's, the guys working on the Camballin power station were shting themselves.?
You're missus will think your a walking encyclopedia.

Isn't there some sort of legislation about foreign entities interfering in Australian politics, and registering as a Foreign Agent?
Perhaps someone needs to have a word with Pfizer.
Why is an American Multinational drug pusher having a say on Australia's constitution?
They use the heading of Pfizer Australia, but it is wholly owned subsidary of Pfizer inc.

Mick

mullokintyre said:

Isn't there some sort of legislation about foreign entities interfering in Australian politics, and registering as a Foreign Agent?
Perhaps someone needs to have a word with Pfizer.
Why is an American Multinational drug pusher having a say on Australia's constitution?
They use the heading of Pfizer Australia, but it is wholly owned subsidary of Pfizer inc.
View attachment 156988
Mick

Click to expand...

Just a virtue signalling piece of advertising, typical of multi nationals wanting publicity.

SirRumpole said:

Just a virtue signalling piece of advertising, typical of multi nationals wanting publicity.

Click to expand...

They also want to stay on the right side of the Govt so they can sell more vaccines

SirRumpole said:

Yes, there is a lot of difference between slaving your guts out for your own patch of dirt and just walking in to a vacant property and taking it over.

Click to expand...

You never saw the irony of your point.

SirRumpole said:

Just a virtue signalling piece of advertising, typical of multi nationals wanting publicity.

Click to expand...

And use The Voice as the centre piece

I have been 50/50 on the Voice for most of time, a few time I swayed over to the Yes & No side, and at one time I was a definite Yes.

This morning, I am 95% No.

My decision comes after reading the morning paper and a couple of ABC articles, having a discussion and listening to a few work experiences.

The turning point for me was this: A friend works for a temping agency which lead to employment at a large volunteer organisation involved with the homeless, NDIS and disadvantaged groups. One of the volunteers was leaving, she is a part time artist that uses her indigenous background to paint, gave a piece of her art to the office as a thank you and goodbye gift. The painting was put up for all who entered the reception area to see. Several months later, a woman that represents local indigenous people receiving help from the organisation came and introduced herself. She saw the painting and became very agitated, telling people to remove that painting immediately, because there must be balance. Female art needs a male equivalent next to it from the same mob. The painting was removed and put in storage.
A few weeks later a discussion between the said indigenous woman and a long time volunteer lead to the volunteer being reprimanded for using the word mob in a conversation about a group of regulars. She was told 'you can't use that term to describe us, only we can, never use that word again.'

And that was what turned me.

If someone can com in and start dictating terms and what words can be used, putting fear into people, confusing the lines of what can and can't be said in a free country, what will happen if the Voice gets up in parliament?

I don't want to see Australia turned into a country of two, them and us.

JohnDe said:

I have been 50/50 on the Voice for most of time, a few time I swayed over to the Yes & No side, and at one time I was a definite Yes.

This morning, I am 95% No.

My decision comes after reading the morning paper and a couple of ABC articles, having a discussion and listening to a few work experiences.

The turning point for me was this: A friend works for a temping agency which lead to employment at a large volunteer organisation involved with the homeless, NDIS and disadvantaged groups. One of the volunteers was leaving, she is a part time artist that uses her indigenous background to paint, gave a piece of her art to the office as a thank you and goodbye gift. The painting was put up for all who entered the reception area to see. Several months later, a woman that represents local indigenous people receiving help from the organisation came and introduced herself. She saw the painting and became very agitated, telling people to remove that painting immediately, because there must be balance. Female art needs a male equivalent next to it from the same mob. The painting was removed and put in storage.
A few weeks later a discussion between the said indigenous woman and a long time volunteer lead to the volunteer being reprimanded for using the word mob in a conversation about a group of regulars. She was told 'you can't use that term to describe us, only we can, never use that word again.'

And that was what turned me.

If someone can com in and start dictating terms and what words can be used, putting fear into people, confusing the lines of what can and can't be said in a free country, what will happen if the Voice gets up in parliament?

I don't want to see Australia turned into a country of two, them and us.

Click to expand...

Guy I consider family is an aboriginal elder. He is routinely consulted (without asking for money) over a range of things. He has to deal with greedy idiots from the aboriginal community at every meeting. Constantly battling, was removed from one board as the others were trying to squeeze money out of a situation for themselves not the local aboriginal community.

I see the same thing in Maori affairs. Greedy prcks I wouldn't p1ss on if they were on fire. Sly bastards that attempt to strong arm other tribes. It's the arrogant scum that seems to worm its way into parliament. They are often unreasonable greedy pieces of sht.


Not all. But by and large.
In saying that there are some strong, honest leaders in the community. But it's the dumb idiots that seem to band together.

I've tried to keep out of this thread. I think the voice is needed. I'm just not confident on the selection process. Having to deal with this in NZ you get to see the divisiveness it causes.
I also don't have a high opinion of some of the leadership. There's a difference in "doing it for the people" or "enriching yourself".

I think a voice is needed.
But tribes rarely agree. Power and wealth gets contained at the top. The mentality of "my bit" way of thinking is often entrenched.
I expect very high level leadership out of any indigenous leaders. Because that's what's needed to bring cultures together.

Very complex subject. I'll probably vote the way my mate tells me as he has more insight.

Realistically, if you ask yourself: "are the current parliamentarians any better"
You would probably find the same sacks of sht floating to the top.

I just find it abhorrent that those whose people have suffered throughout end up getting represented by grifters.

moXJO said:

Guy I consider family is an aboriginal elder. He is routinely consulted (without asking for money) over a range of things. He has to deal with greedy idiots from the aboriginal community at every meeting. Constantly battling, was removed from one board as the others were trying to squeeze money out of a situation for themselves not the local aboriginal community.

I see the same thing in Maori affairs. Greedy prcks I wouldn't p1ss on if they were on fire. Sly bastards that attempt to strong arm other tribes. It's the arrogant scum that seems to worm its way into parliament. They are often unreasonable greedy pieces of sht.


Not all. But by and large.
In saying that there are some strong, honest leaders in the community. But it's the dumb idiots that seem to band together.

I've tried to keep out of this thread. I think the voice is needed. I'm just not confident on the selection process. Having to deal with this in NZ you get to see the divisiveness it causes.
I also don't have a high opinion of some of the leadership. There's a difference in "doing it for the people" or "enriching yourself".

I think a voice is needed.
But tribes rarely agree. Power and wealth gets contained at the top. The mentality of "my bit" way of thinking is often entrenched.
I expect very high level leadership out of any indigenous leaders. Because that's what's needed to bring cultures together.

Very complex subject. I'll probably vote the way my mate tells me as he has more insight.

Click to expand...

Exactly why I have been in the 50/550 camp. I also believe that the Voice is needed, but I have no confidence in the current priorities to allow a loosely worded referendum to open doors.

Bee

moXJO said:

Realistically, if you ask yourself: "are the current parliamentarians any better"
You would probably find the same sacks of sht floating to the top.

I just find it abhorrent that those whose people have suffered throughout end up getting represented by grifters.

Click to expand...

Been traveling through the North West , West and East Kimberley’s talking to various mobs and the conversation here and that other thread are worlds away from reality particularly as examples put up about urban Aboriginal's have no relevance. Its a shame most Australians will vote on something that they are clueless about fed rubbish from various sources with their own agendas such is politics.

IFocus said:

Bee

Been traveling through the North West , West and East Kimberley’s talking to various mobs and the conversation here and that other thread are worlds away from reality particularly as examples put up about urban Aboriginal's have no relevance. Its a shame most Australians will vote on something that they are clueless about fed rubbish from various sources with their own agendas such is politics.

Click to expand...

The funny thing is, who's to know who puts who in your category "most Australians will vote on something that they are clueless about fed rubbish from various sources with their own agendas" ?

IFocus said:

And there is the problem, an example of the nationals member voting no while the communities he represents in the NT want it.

If you are talking about Jacinta clearly she hates blackfellas and makes it very clear, go fugue, no representation there.

Click to expand...

"most Australians will vote on something that they are clueless about fed rubbish from various sources with their own agendas"

JohnDe said:

Exactly why I have been in the 50/550 camp. I also believe that the Voice is needed, but I have no confidence in the current priorities to allow a loosely worded referendum to open doors.

Click to expand...

So long as we don't go to far down the road of US style blacktivism and division. The voice in theory should be the next step for aboriginals to begin assuming responsibility for themselves.

The government goal is probably going to be lifting them out of poverty and make them productive members of society. By using the voice to masks any failures as some kind of (voice suggested policy).

I'm not even sure if aboriginals want to fit in our current society mold. I mean are many people happy being a cog in the machine even if you are lower class and white?

That's not to say they don't. My sons tutor was aboriginal, 20 a former F1 driver (injured young and had to get out). Was doing a double degree and the guy was a genius in theory and real world practice. He excels. But there's a huge divide to those in poverty.

But when you have a large portion living in poverty. Then it's often not going to work jamming them into a model where we give them cash, call them bludger and wonder why it isn't working.

Obviously education is paramount, but how do we get to that point. Our current class norms barely work for us for those at the lower wage levels. Especially in 2023.
So something needs to be implemented where the worst off are given a model where it's possible to get out of poverty.
I know there's a few trials going on.

It's a conundrum. We need leadership, but often it's the ego driven ones that will do what is necessary to get to the next step. You just have to hope they fail by the wayside to better people.
I do see the negatives for both yes/no positions. I worry about woke drivel driving the debate.

So I suppose it becomes a question of " well what then?". Whatever we get is never going to be perfect. Aboriginal communities are flailing now.
Do we pretend that a no vote is taking action?
I mean the current state is already having a negative effect. Look at crime in some of the communities. I'm under no illusion how sht some members can be. But doing nothing will lead to worse. That's what's happening now.

Or do we take action even in the event that consequences may come back to bite us on the arse. But also may produce an outcome favourable to everyone?
And I heavily lean on "bite us in the arse". I'm more worried about the white activists then any black ones. But I know activists. They keep pushing no matter how much they take.

I'm not interested in the moral position. Others can fight on that hill. I'm not even trying to sway anyones position. I can see the misleading positions on social media and news. I can see the thrusting into the spotlight of unpopular aboriginal activists.
I suppose it can be very hard for the average person to know what's really going on.
Hell, there's a reason I don't want to touch it as a subject.

IFocus said:

Bee

Been traveling through the North West , West and East Kimberley’s talking to various mobs and the conversation here and that other thread are worlds away from reality particularly as examples put up about urban Aboriginal's have no relevance. Its a shame most Australians will vote on something that they are clueless about fed rubbish from various sources with their own agendas such is politics.

Click to expand...

In NZ we have "city tribes" (one in particular whose leadership is a lawyer) steamroll the smaller bush tribes for more power. Unfortunately for him our tribe are full of a-holes that have never bent to government ar5ekissers (yep that's why I'm an opinionated dck).
It's a mess though, as those that need to be heard are not. It just becomes another layer of the "haves".

My uncle who is the current tribe leadership was over here recently. I know he was speaking with aboriginal leaders on the way forward. He probably helped kick this off.

If you don’t get a say in whats going on why would you listen to some politician or bureaucrat no matter what background they are?

Yeah, so let's create another layer of politicians and bureaucrats, that'll fix it ?

JohnDe said:

I have been 50/50 on the Voice for most of time, a few time I swayed over to the Yes & No side, and at one time I was a definite Yes.

This morning, I am 95% No.

My decision comes after reading the morning paper and a couple of ABC articles, having a discussion and listening to a few work experiences.

The turning point for me was this: A friend works for a temping agency which lead to employment at a large volunteer organisation involved with the homeless, NDIS and disadvantaged groups. One of the volunteers was leaving, she is a part time artist that uses her indigenous background to paint, gave a piece of her art to the office as a thank you and goodbye gift. The painting was put up for all who entered the reception area to see. Several months later, a woman that represents local indigenous people receiving help from the organisation came and introduced herself. She saw the painting and became very agitated, telling people to remove that painting immediately, because there must be balance. Female art needs a male equivalent next to it from the same mob. The painting was removed and put in storage.
A few weeks later a discussion between the said indigenous woman and a long time volunteer lead to the volunteer being reprimanded for using the word mob in a conversation about a group of regulars. She was told 'you can't use that term to describe us, only we can, never use that word again.'

And that was what turned me.

If someone can com in and start dictating terms and what words can be used, putting fear into people, confusing the lines of what can and can't be said in a free country, what will happen if the Voice gets up in parliament?

I don't want to see Australia turned into a country of two, them and us.

Click to expand...

Is that what shapes your thinking?
The Voice has nothing to do with local squabbles.
And your idea of "them and us" exists in dozens of different contexts, so why you see it as somehow "defining" is perplexing.

No voters essentially create the weakest excuses I have come across, and their logic is barely intelligible. Dutton's rationale for voting no, for example that it would give the courts fodder, beggars belief. Worse still was his idea that it will make indigenous people more equal. Does he mean in terms of health, education, earnings, life expectancy or incarceration? He has no capacity to substantiate his ideas which are pure dribble.

Then we have the likes of Lydia Thorpe, who was a "no," now might abstain, but could even vote "yes," according to her interview today. Put simply, her ideas are a train wreck. For example, she want's "sovereignty" but thought it could be negotiated! That's not how sovereignty works Lydia! And she wants a "treaty," which is a step Albo will take should the yes vote get up. Dissecting her points would be a waste of space given I have addressed almost every one earlier in this thread.

rederob said:

Is that what shapes your thinking?
The Voice has nothing to do with local squabbles.
And your idea of "them and us" exists in dozens of different contexts, so why you see it as somehow "defining" is perplexing.

No voters essentially create the weakest excuses I have come across, and their logic is barely intelligible. Dutton's rationale for voting no, for example that it would give the courts fodder, beggars belief. Worse still was his idea that it will make indigenous people more equal. Does he mean in terms of health, education, earnings, life expectancy or incarceration? He has no capacity to substantiate his ideas which are pure dribble.

Then we have the likes of Lydia Thorpe, who was a "no," now might abstain, but could even vote "yes," according to her interview today. Put simply, her ideas are a train wreck. For example, she want's "sovereignty" but thought it could be negotiated! That's not how sovereignty works Lydia! And she wants a "treaty," which is a step Albo will take should the yes vote get up. Dissecting her points would be a waste of space given I have addressed almost every one earlier in this thread.

Click to expand...

Tell you what, you write me a novel about your life and post it on this page and I’ll read it before answering your question.

moXJO said:

So something needs to be implemented where the worst off are given a model where it's possible to get out of poverty.

Click to expand...

Fully agree but I'll argue that any link to race is tenuous at best.

It's a problem applying to many, it's not something limited to Aboriginals. It applies to them yes, but it applies to others as well so logically we'd aim to fix the problem of people being trapped in poverty rather than limiting that only to a particular group.

The "we have to start with someone" argument is always about division rather than fixing the problem. Whether it's poverty, health, crime either as perpetrator or victim, education or indeed anything if the intent is genuinely to fix it well then aim the measures at whoever's in that situation. There's no need to add conditions that exclude some based on factors that aren't about the actual problem, if there's a need to limit it then the severity of the problem is the logical criteria.