The Voice

[rederob]

While people cling to a 60,000 year old 'culture' they will never adapt to the modern world.

Western culture has changed with the times, music, art are mostly different from what they were before. Latin was once the pre eminent language, it's not used any more. Science has moved on from thinking the sun rotates around the earth.

While people can respect their history , it doesn't mean that their culture is any use in today's world.

What on planet earth does that have to do with the referendum?
Also, what does it have to do with the systemic disadvantage since colonisation over 200 years ago?

Although the graphic below is from 2014, it highlights many sectors of disadvantage of ATSI peoples compared to non-indigenous:

Not that I expect anyone will look, but regional difference in ATSI community outcomes can be found at this link.

As to your point, however, the 35% of city dwelling indigenous people who clearly are not practising traditional cultural lifestyles, suffer similar levels of statistical disadvantage albeit with better access to health care.

 

[SirRumpole]

What on planet earth does that have to do with the referendum?

It means that the solution to their issues lies in them adjusting to the modern world, not in anything government can do for them.

 

[basilio]

The Indigenous community is doing it ALL WRONG . TOTALLY. ABSOLUTELY.
Lets get real about how one has effective access and a Voice in Government.
May 29, 2023

Voice to Parliament Scrapped After Indigenous Leaders Realise Hiring PwC Will Give Better Access to Government​

Plans for a First Nation’s Voice to Parliament have been abandoned, with Indigenous leaders saying it will be easier to have a say on Government policy via a rolling contract with consulting firm PwC instead.

Announcing the new direction, members of the ‘Yes’ campaign said putting PwC on retainer will save months of campaigning and lead to a better result.

“It’ll give us unfettered access to Government policy – much more than The Voice ever would have. And we don’t need to muck around with a Referendum; we’ll just draw up a contract. It’ll all be sorted by the end of the week. I wish we’d thought of it earlier to be honest,” an Indigenous spokesperson said.

He responded to fears the system would create a two-tiered society that would see some Australians granted more rights than others. “Will it give us access to privileges that ordinary Australians don’t enjoy? xuck yes! That’s the way this thing works! We’ll be able to shape policy to our advantage, get access to confidential information, meet with Ministers, the whole lot. This is nothing like The Voice, it’s proper, unconstrained access”.

Voice to Parliament Scrapped After Indigenous Leaders Realise Hiring PwC Will Give Better Access to Government — The Shovel

Plans for a First Nation’s Voice to Parliament have been abandoned, with Indigenous leaders saying it will be easier to have a say on Government policy via a rolling contract with consulting firm PwC instead.

theshovel.com.au

 

[basilio]

It means that the solution to their issues lies in them adjusting to the modern world, not in anything government can do for them.

Indeed Rumpy. As The Shovel noted the real way of getting a voice in government is through the proper channels of consultants, lobbyists and Cayman Island Bank accounts

 

[JohnDe]

Fair point.

“We have to understand the word properly,” Simons wrote. “What looks like objectivity to white, Anglo journalists such as myself – the children of the empire, the beneficiaries of colonialism – looks very different to those who are, to quote Grant, ‘on the other side of history’.”​

​

In short, objectivity is in fact subjective – it depends on the personal circumstances and history of the reporter. Who knew?​

​

Grant said Msimang and Reid “were on, talking the truth – just the truth. And yet, for balance, we have to have someone who will deny the truth or reduce the truth.”​

​

This is the ultimate Orwellian trick – define your views as the “truth” and then you don’t have to hear opponents of your views.​

​

This takes us back to where we started. I’m all for love, peace and emotional intelligence – at poetry corners, writers festivals, a Simon & Garfunkel revival concert and self-help weekends. But can we please keep it away from policymaking and especially away from our Constitution? Cool heads, calm logic and robust debate will serve us much better there.​

Indigenous voice to parliament: How voice of reason has been lost to emotional abuse

What is it about the voice debate, and indeed much of the debate about Indigenous affairs generally, that causes apparently rational people to lose all objectivity, wallow in sentimentality and engage in irrational overreach?

In my lifetime I have not seen a more thuggish, deceptive and divisive set of claims from one side on a matter of national significance. One expects ideological overreach, for example, from extremists. But is that how we are to view the recent comments from a senior judge, a corporate bigwig, an academic and a celebrity activist?

Prominent NSW Supreme Court judge Ian Harrison apparently took leave of his critical faculties and training to pen an almost adolescent email to Nationals MP Pat Conaghan. Sure, even judges are entitled to spend their evening hours writing overwrought emails – but only to their nearest and dearest and in their personal capacity, not to politicians they don’t know and about matters of controversial national significance that could easily come before the courts.

The constitutional and propriety blunders committed by Harrison’s potential breach of the separation of powers were not the worst of it. How does the hard-bitten judge who presided over Christopher Dawson’s murder trial get reduced to mawkish sentimentality and an inability to recognise that reasonable people could differ about the voice?

Harrison was certainly entitled to say that, in his view, “there are no sleeping constitutional issues here”. He was not, however, entitled to treat the contrary view as untenable.

When the greatest Australian constitutional lawyer of recent times, the recently departed and much-lamented David Jackson KC, could express as much constitutional doubt about the proposed voice as he did in his recent submission to the parliamentary inquiry, accompanied by former High Court Justice Ian Callinan and very many other distinguished lawyers, the most any rational lawyer could say is that the proposal is hotly contested.

To feign certainty when the whole world can clearly see there is none is not what one expects from a dispassionate, careful legal observer. To compound this failure of logic, Harrison added a dose of emotional abuse by accusing the MP of “depths of paternalism and racism that oozed from your words”. What is it about this debate that provokes such unhinged reactions?

Michael Chaney may be a heavyweight in the corporate world, but for him to say that opposing the referendum would “betray” the Australian people was little better than juvenile abuse. He then compounded his blunder by asserting that chief executives of other big companies “universally” shared the same view. What exaggerated rubbish.

The Australian has been told that some corporate bosses who have met Chaney to hear his views on the voice have not appreciated what they see as an effort to bludgeon corporate Australia into supporting his views. The Australian has been told that many corporate bosses prefer a measured, logical approach, and believe that taking either side in a highly contentious political debate is entirely inappropriate for companies.

Anyone reading The Guardian last weekend (not that I recommend such folly) would have recognised the same sort of anti-intellectual overreach that marked Harrison and Chaney’s interventions. When discussing criticism of Stan Grant’s work on the ABC’s coverage of the coronation, Margaret Simons urged a new definition of objectivity in journalism on us.

While paying lip service to the need for objectivity in reporting, especially on the ABC, which has a statutory duty of impartiality and balance, Simons says it’s all a matter of definition.

“We have to understand the word properly,” Simons wrote. “What looks like objectivity to white, Anglo journalists such as myself – the children of the empire, the beneficiaries of colonialism – looks very different to those who are, to quote Grant, ‘on the other side of history’.”

In short, objectivity is in fact subjective – it depends on the personal circumstances and history of the reporter. Who knew?

As an apparent fan of what Humpty Dumpty told Alice “when I use a word … it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less”, Simons needs to enlighten us as to what other categories of reporter deserve this leave pass from Anglo definitions of objectivity. Does her new definition of objectivity apply generally or just to her favoured groups?

It seems to be a curiously Australian thing for Simons. It has never, to my knowledge, been suggested that great African-American journalists such as CNN’s lead news anchor Bernard Shaw or PBS NewsHour legend Gwen Ifill or the equally admirable Lester Holt, who was the first black person to solo anchor a nightly news program, were entitled to a different standard of objectivity in reporting. Of course, defining your way into power has a long, if despicable, history. George Orwell’s description of the work of the Ministry of Truth remains the definitive example of how even “truth” can be manipulated. Who could forget the Ministry of Truth slogans “War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength”?

This brings us back to Grant. While he has achieved much in his career, he does seem to have forgotten Orwell, and to be busy redefining “truth”. Not only redefining truth but claiming personal ownership of it. Grant was quoted in The Weekend Australian as blasting the ABC for misunderstanding the concept of balance. He complained about a Q+A segment concerning the monarchy, in which Eric Abetz provided a counterpoint to the views of South African author Sisonke Msimang, Wiradjuri woman (and Grant’s cousin) Teela Reid, and Grant himself.

Grant said Msimang and Reid “were on, talking the truth – just the truth. And yet, for balance, we have to have someone who will deny the truth or reduce the truth.”

This is the ultimate Orwellian trick – define your views as the “truth” and then you don’t have to hear opponents of your views.

To give Grant the benefit of the doubt, it seems he is driven by emotion, not malice. His comments, made at the Sydney Writers Festival, embody the feelings-not-logic zeitgeist one expects at writers festivals. Grant made the point that the media seemed deficient in the emotional department. “I don’t think (the media has) the language for the love, for what’s required of us.”

This takes us back to where we started. I’m all for love, peace and emotional intelligence – at poetry corners, writers festivals, a Simon & Garfunkel revival concert and self-help weekends. But can we please keep it away from policymaking and especially away from our Constitution? Cool heads, calm logic and robust debate will serve us much better there.

JANET ALBRECHTSEN COLUMNIST

 

[sptrawler]

I just saw an aboriginal activist talking about the indigenous incarceration rate.

The way she was going on , it was everyone's fault apart from the people who actually committed the crimes.

Unless there is some leadership from the elders talking to their own people and getting them to mend their ways by laying off the grog and treating their partners and children properly, then I don't think talking to the suits in Canberra will have much effect

I haven't read it but does it explain the reasons for the gaps or just point out their existence ?

Eg life expectancy. Does it take into account alcohol/drug/tobacco abuse ? These things are personal life style choices and would be the same for people of any race with those habits.

View attachment 157494

I guess everyone has a point of view, a lot of what Rumpy said is highlighted in Robs post

 

[rederob]

It means that the solution to their issues lies in them adjusting to the modern world, not in anything government can do for them.

That's total BS.
The data shows that for those indigenous living in cities there remains systemic disadvantage.
Your understanding of the role of governments is also poor. All levels of government seek to minimise disadvantage.

 

[Knobby22]

Passed in Parliament.
When is the vote to happen?
My prediction is that it gets through in most states except Queensland.
So it will fail.

 

[sptrawler]

That's total BS.
The data shows that for those indigenous living in cities there remains systemic disadvantage.
Your understanding of the role of governments is also poor. All levels of government seek to minimise disadvantage.

That is very true, there are numerous affirmative action initiatives where the Govt subsidises aboriginal employment and many companies do make an effort.
Most of the problems I've seen over my career is, not many of the aboriginal employees enjoy the long term commitment required for a carrer, some do but I would love to see the statistics.
I know a few that have and I've known some that haven't.

 

[SirRumpole]

That's total BS.
The data shows that for those indigenous living in cities there remains systemic disadvantage.
Your understanding of the role of governments is also poor. All levels of government seek to minimise disadvantage.

What data ?

 

[sptrawler]

After all the too and froing, IMO it starting to become obvious that the voice is an initiative by Canberra based career politicians, who see it as a way to add more bloatware in Canberra.
While at the same time imprinting their pretty uninspiring careers into history and also giving jobs to other art degree aspiring political hacks a pathway to their political future.
Cynical, yes, disappointed, yes, so much more could be done without the need for fanfare and argument IMO.
It's difficult to encourage inclusiveness, when you are trying to set in stone division, you are admitting defeat when you have to to hide behind the constitution to cover a lack of will to mend the issue IMO.

 

[Smurf1976]

Although the graphic below is from 2014, it highlights many sectors of disadvantage of ATSI peoples compared to non-indigenous

The questions I have are:

1. How does the Voice fix this?

2. Why limit any solution only to ATSI people? Why not apply it to anyone in the same circumstances regardless of race? That is, address the problem itself rather than addressing it only when it's an ATSI person being affected.

For one example, well I can certainly see that a young person growing up in a remote or very remote area faces disadvantage and for the majority the solution is permanently leaving. The only real exceptions being those who really do want to work in farming, mining etc as an adult. That isn't confined to ATSI or any other particular group however, it's something that applies to anyone age ~18 and in a remote area, many would benefit from practical assistance with relocating somewhere that has real opportunity no matter what colour their skin is.

 

[rederob]

The questions I have are:

1. How does the Voice fix this?

Try reading the background information to the Voice which provides a great deal of detail.
The Voice is predicated on grass roots solutions to local problems rather than broad brush generic remedies that assume the nature of disadvantage is the same across all regions.
The Voice also stands a better chance of proposing lasting solutions, withstanding the ephemera of politics.

2. Why limit any solution only to ATSI people? Why not apply it to anyone in the same circumstances regardless of race?

As I said to @SirRumpole, it's the role of all levels of government to address disadvantage wherever it occurs. In that context, solutions are always being proposed, funded and implemented. The most recent big ticket item is NDIS.
In the case of ATSI peoples the nature and levels of their disadvantage have been researched and quantified for decades because they stick out like proverbial dog's appendages, as I posted at #961 above. The problem with solutions to ATSI disadvantage is that they have consistently failed, again as elaborated in the background info the Voice. This has not been the case in addressing most other areas of non-indigenous disadvantage.

That is, address the problem itself rather than addressing it only when it's an ATSI person being affected.

You missed the part where disadvantage is unique to dispossessed indigenous peoples who have been subsequently constrained to government legislated "communities" - eg DOGITs in Queensland, - and those others who continue to suffer systemic disadvantage as proven in the failure of regular Closing the Gap reports to show a turnaround.

For one example, well I can certainly see that a young person growing up in a remote or very remote area faces disadvantage and for the majority the solution is permanently leaving. The only real exceptions being those who really do want to work in farming, mining etc as an adult. That isn't confined to ATSI or any other particular group however, it's something that applies to anyone age ~18 and in a remote area, many would benefit from practical assistance with relocating somewhere that has real opportunity no matter what colour their skin is.

Your anecdote misses on so many levels. First is the capacity of an indigenous person to gain employment anywhere in Australia, not just on a farm or in the mining industry . Some data (that @SirRumpole seems to lazy to look for):

Add to the above matters relating to education, health and incarceration and tell me where you can find another category of persons who suffer the same levels of disadvantage that warrant significant intervention.

 

[SirRumpole]

Try reading the background information to the Voice which provides a great deal of detail.
The Voice is predicated on grass roots solutions to local problems rather than broad brush generic remedies that assume the nature of disadvantage is the same across all regions.
The Voice also stands a better chance of proposing lasting solutions, withstanding the ephemera of politics.

As I said to @SirRumpole, it's the role of all levels of government to address disadvantage wherever it occurs. In that context, solutions are always being proposed, funded and implemented. The most recent big ticket item is NDIS.
In the case of ATSI peoples the nature and levels of their disadvantage have been researched and quantified for decades because they stick out like proverbial dog's appendages, as I posted at #961 above. The problem with solutions to ATSI disadvantage is that they have consistently failed, again as elaborated in the background info the Voice. This has not been the case in addressing most other areas of non-indigenous disadvantage.

You missed the part where disadvantage is unique to dispossessed indigenous peoples who have been subsequently constrained to government legislated "communities" - eg DOGITs in Queensland, - and those others who continue to suffer systemic disadvantage as proven in the failure of regular Closing the Gap reports to show a turnaround.

Your anecdote misses on so many levels. First is the capacity of an indigenous person to gain employment anywhere in Australia, not just on a farm or in the mining industry . Some data (that @SirRumpole seems to lazy to look for):
View attachment 157556
Add to the above matters relating to education, health and incarceration and tell me where you can find another category of persons who suffer the same levels of disadvantage that warrant significant intervention.

Statistics don't reveal the cause.

e.g. Low levels of indigenous employment could indicate an unwillingness to participate in the "invaders" economy, ie cultural resistance rather than lack of opportunities.

How will the voice fix this ?

As I said before, the Voice should be speaking to their own people first.

 

[rederob]

After all the too and froing, IMO it starting to become obvious that the voice is an initiative by Canberra based career politicians, who see it as a way to add more bloatware in Canberra.

First, Canberra's pollies had nothing to do with the Voice coming into being, so how can that be "obvious" when it's untrue?

While at the same time imprinting their pretty uninspiring careers into history and also giving jobs to other art degree aspiring political hacks a pathway to their political future.

Given Labor and Liberal Parties are at odds on the Voice that statement does not hold water.
In the case of Labor, they are implementing an electoral pledge that was clearly approved by voters, and at one time was also being carried forward by the Coalition. As a matter of previous bipartisanship the event was simply a matter of national policy so had nobody's name written large to garner a better political future.

Cynical, yes, disappointed, yes, so much more could be done without the need for fanfare and argument IMO.

There was bipartisan support at one stage, and that has obviously disappeared. This topic is really no different to the debate on same sex marriage, where people who were unlikely to be affected became the most vociferous detractors.

It's difficult to encourage inclusiveness, when you are trying to set in stone division,

How is that true?
We have an identifiable group that does not measure up to "average" for the Australian population at large.
The Voice is an attempt to achieve equality and therefore foster inclusiveness. I find the very opposite to you, and any division here is an artefact created to deny 1) recognition in the Constitution; and 2) that there is a better way of developing policies that redress ATSI disadvantage.

you are admitting defeat when you have to to hide behind the constitution to cover a lack of will to mend the issue IMO.

On the contrary. The whole process is predicated on ways to redress past failings.

 

[rederob]

Statistics don't reveal the cause.

e.g. Low levels of indigenous employment could indicate an unwillingness to participate in the "invaders" economy, ie cultural resistance rather than lack of opportunities.

How will the voice fix this ?

If you cared to read and believe what has been written on these matters for decades you would have come across explanations for why we are where we are.
And if you cared to read info on the Voice you would also understand why its difference gives it a better chance at success than previous government policies.

As I said before, the Voice should be speaking to their own people first.

Given the Voice only came about because it involved "speaking to their own people first" you have again shot yourself in the foot!

 

[SirRumpole]

Given the Voice only came about because it involved "speaking to their own people first" you have again shot yourself in the foot!

And the people it spoke to decided it was someone elses problem !

 

[rederob]

And the people it spoke to decided it was someone elses problem !

Your comments beggar belief.
You have proven to be totally clueless on this topic.
The Voice makes it their problem to solve through ideas from the grass roots.
Have you understood anything posted or available that makes this so clear?

 

[sptrawler]

First, Canberra's pollies had nothing to do with the Voice coming into being, so how can that be "obvious" when it's untrue?

Of course it did, as you point out in your next pearl of wisdom, " they are implementing an electoral pledge", which I will get to next.

The "voice" until Albo made it a political issue, was a movement by a sector of the aboriginal community and still isn't wholly endorsed by all sectors of the aboriginal community.

Given Labor and Liberal Parties are at odds on the Voice that statement does not hold water.
In the case of Labor, they are implementing an electoral pledge that was clearly approved by voters, and at one time was also being carried forward by the Coalition. As a matter of previous bipartisanship the event was simply a matter of national policy so had nobody's name written large to garner a better political future.

Drawing another long bow, "clearly approved by voters", Labor won by the smallest margin ever and all of a sudden it is made out to be a mandate. ?

There was bipartisan support at one stage, and that has obviously disappeared. This topic is really no different to the debate on same sex marriage, where people who were unlikely to be affected became the most vociferous detractors.

When the reality of how absurd it is, of course people will start and question the reasoning, having a sector of a democracy with greater access to the Government than the rest of the population enshrined in your constitution, just flies in the face of a fair and equal society.

If a sector requires more help or even compensation that's one thing, enshrining in the constitution that one sector has more political rights than the rest of the population, is bizarre.
Of course the rusted on party followers will shout its merits from the roof tops, as they do with any other party policy, that's to be expected, but it doesn't validate the issue.
The argument was made that same sex marriage and gay people were hugely disadvantaged, which they were they could be jailed for homosexuality, it didn't take a recognition in the constitution to give them equal rights and recognition.

How is that true?
We have an identifiable group that does not measure up to "average" for the Australian population at large.
The Voice is an attempt to achieve equality and therefore foster inclusiveness. I find the very opposite to you, and any division here is an artefact created to deny 1) recognition in the Constitution; and 2) that there is a better way of developing policies that redress ATSI disadvantage.

Equality wont be achieved by putting a phrase in our constitution, that states that some have more rights and political access than others, as I've said before who says the aboriginals want to be like us?
They are disadvantaged because they don't want to conform to our expectations and become wage slaves, yet to be equal with our outcomes in our society that is what is required, so as has been happening we try to facilitate their lifestyle choices.
If there are better ways of developing policies, they only require developing, same as any other policy.

On the contrary. The whole process is predicated on ways to redress past failings.

That is a salesman's pitch.

 

[SirRumpole]

Your comments beggar belief.
You have proven to be totally clueless on this topic.
The Voice makes it their problem to solve through ideas from the grass roots.
Have you understood anything posted or available that makes this so clear?

The only thing that the proposed "Voice" will do is to put pressure on politicians to solve the problems of the Aboriginal communities.

Why can't those communities shoulder some of the burdens ? There is no reason why they can't encourage themselves to give up alcohol, drugs, crime , domestic violence etc.

There are laws that are supposed to limit or punish these things but whenever the offenders are put away, it's discrimination and 'disadvantage'.

I don't buy that.

More responsibility by those communities is the answer not bureaucratic intervention.