The Voice

[IFocus]

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.


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. ?


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.


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.

That is a salesman's pitch.

So given all that you have said NZ is an unfair democracy (rated higher now than Australia from memory) they have a treaty denied to Aboriginals they have reserved seats in parliament plus much much more makes the arguments here… questionable

 

[IFocus]

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.

Come on Rump all the communities I have been in are dry with big signs saying drug dealers fu(k off
Parts of suburbs around SP and me have far greater issues than Aboriginal communities NW towns are a different story but you find some families go hard at it some don’t

 

[sptrawler]

So given all that you have said NZ is an unfair democracy (rated higher now than Australia from memory) they have a treaty denied to Aboriginals they have reserved seats in parliament plus much much more makes the arguments here… questionable

Yet another misquote by the mob, some would rather a treaty, than a voice to parliament, so how about we stay on the same page? ?

I could actually understand a treaty, if you want to look back on the forum to when Kev apologised, around the same time as he was pumping stimulus due to the GFC, I actually said he should pay the aboriginals compensation, but as usual that wasn't done and now what do we have. ?

Maybe when we have the "voice", which i think will get up, we will then find out exactly what it is about, because ATM it is just a load of meaningless waffle and nonsense with no measurable improvements or outcomes that differ from what already exists.
Some would call it a load of wank, but with politicians, it wouldn't be the first or the last.

With a treaty it puts a line under the issue, what we are doing is putting a vague reference in our constitution, it is an open ended ongoing disparity in Australians rights. Which no doubt will manifest itself as another ongoing hiden middle class tax that is given another name.
Many will be too dumb to realise that IMO, so be it.
I would rather see a negotiated treaty, that puts in place measurable inputs and outputs and places a mutual responsibility on both parties to meet their obligations.
Not some committee in Canberra that sit around navel gazing and doing nothing different to what has already been done, it will just become another NDIS style rorted initiative, as usually happen.
The voice is a sad second option IMO.

A treaty is a negotiated agreement between two (or more) parties. It is only signed when all parties agree. Treaties can be different, and are shaped by the social, political, and historical background that exists between the groups negotiating the treaty.

 

[rederob]

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

More BS.
The Voice can make proposals for change which are based on local solutions.
Parliament chooses what it will actually do.

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.

It is clear to me you have no idea what "systemic disadvantage' means and also prefer to remain ignorant of what is outlined in the Voice.

 

[rederob]

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.

You claimed "that the voice is an initiative by Canberra based career politicians" and I correctly said this is untrue.
Way back in 2010 there was bipartisan support for indigenous recognition (not a Voice) via a referendum to alter the the Constitution, and a framework was established. Consultative process amongst ATSI peoples led to the Uluru Statement from the Heart, from which the Voice was born.

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.

Please read the history I linked o above, as you will see you are quite wrong

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. ?

Actually that point was supported by constant polling, so your point again misses the mark.

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.

Please show how the Voice has greater access to government. I can do everything the Voice can do if I have a good idea. The Voice will not have the clout of major industry lobby groups that spend millions in funding electoral campaigns.

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.

Except that is not true. How about you tell us all which rights change?

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.

Correct, as it was a matter easily solved by legislation.
Constitutional recognition of our first inhabitants was as a long standing bipartisan policy on indigenous affairs. To somehow think this is all new and based on the Voice, is @rse about.

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?

Equal outcomes was what I was talking about, and is precisely what the Voice is targeting achieving. You seem to be confused, and also continue to make baseless claims.

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.

There is no research suggesting your points are accurate. Health, education and incarceration have zilch to do with being "wage slaves" as you put it.

If there are better ways of developing policies, they only require developing, same as any other policy.

And that's exactly the framework that will be provided by the Voice.

 

[sptrawler]

You claimed "that the voice is an initiative by Canberra based career politicians" and I correctly said this is untrue.
Way back in 2010 there was bipartisan support for indigenous recognition (not a Voice) via a referendum to alter the the Constitution, and a framework was established. Consultative process amongst ATSI peoples led to the Uluru Statement from the Heart, from which the Voice was born.

Thanks for that.

Please read the history I linked o above, as you will see you are quite wrong

Actually that point was supported by constant polling, so your point again misses the mark.

On your measure, not mine which was the Federal election, not selective polling, or selective choice of self confirmation.

Please show how the Voice has greater access to government. I can do everything the Voice can do if I have a good idea. The Voice will not have the clout of major industry lobby groups that spend millions in funding electoral campaigns.

If that were true, there would be no need to spend the money on a referendum, as you point out it is a waste of time and money.

Except that is not true. How about you tell us all which rights change?

Correct, as it was a matter easily solved by legislation.
Constitutional recognition of our first inhabitants was as a long standing bipartisan policy on indigenous affairs. To somehow think this is all new and based on the Voice, is @rse about.

To have a pointless clause placed in the constitution seems to be the most ar$ed about thing being done, as you have pointed out.

Equal outcomes was what I was talking about, and is precisely what the Voice is targeting achieving. You seem to be confused, and also continue to make baseless claims.

There is no research suggesting your points are accurate. Health, education and incarceration have zilch to do with being "wage slaves" as you put it.

And that's exactly the framework that will be provided by the Voice.

Fortunately it will be decided by the public and the more that people as yourself push a baseless vague argument, the more the public are turning off the idea, because it all becomes less plausible. You are claiming it has no effect, has no power, therefore really has no point, which drives the belief of a hidden agenda.
So IMO keep up the good work.

 

[IFocus]

Thanks for that.
Fortunately it will be decided by the public and the more that people as yourself push a baseless vague argument, the more the public are turning off the idea, because it all becomes less plausible. You are claiming it has no effect, has no power, therefore really has no point, which drives the belief of a hidden agenda.
So IMO keep up the good work.

Robs points are totally on the money the best info available anywhere actually its a shame you and others don’t understand, keep raising points that have nothing to do with the referendum or purpose or the flaming obvious.

The negative campaign will likely kill the yes vote made up of baseless claims that are regularly made here such is politics that people buy in when it suits their prejudices Terese Isaac’s talked about how she faced that her whole life.

As for the treaty the hard heads choose the voice because a treaty as per NZ has no chance I couldn’t imagine the outrage from those wetting their beds over the thought.

 

[wayneL]

Robs points are totally on the money the best info available anywhere actually its a shame you and others don’t understand, keep raising points that have nothing to do with the referendum or purpose or the flaming obvious.

The negative campaign will likely kill the yes vote made up of baseless claims that are regularly made here such is politics that people buy in when it suits their prejudices Terese Isaac’s talked about how she faced that her whole life.

As for the treaty the hard heads choose the voice because a treaty as per NZ has no chance I couldn’t imagine the outrage from those wetting their beds over the thought.

It's people like @IFocus that'll make everyone vote no. So good work there, Komrade.

 

[rederob]

If that were true, there would be no need to spend the money on a referendum, as you point out it is a waste of time and money.

I never, ever, said it's a waste of money.
As I showed, bipartisan support for a referendum commenced in 2010 as there is no other way of adding words to the Constitution.

To have a pointless clause placed in the constitution seems to be the most ar$ed about thing being done, as you have pointed out.

On the contrary, I believe the opposite as indigenous recognition deserves to be part of our Constitution.

Fortunately it will be decided by the public and the more that people as yourself push a baseless vague argument, the more the public are turning off the idea, because it all becomes less plausible. You are claiming it has no effect, has no power, therefore really has no point, which drives the belief of a hidden agenda.
So IMO keep up the good work.

I thought you might have actually chosen to support the statements you made which I know to be false, so maybe you made the right move to avoid them. Disinformation, obfuscation, and outright lies about the Voice are running rampant and many people are being sucked in.

I personally do not believe the Voice will get up as the media has now concentrated on the negatives and is running the baseless claim that the Voice is divisive. I see this along the lines of the Republic debate, where most people were in favour until the waters were muddied by complete irrelevances. I hope I am wrong.

 

[sptrawler]

Robs points are totally on the money the best info available anywhere actually its a shame you and others don’t understand, keep raising points that have nothing to do with the referendum or purpose or the flaming obvious.

The negative campaign will likely kill the yes vote made up of baseless claims that are regularly made here such is politics that people buy in when it suits their prejudices Terese Isaac’s talked about how she faced that her whole life.

As for the treaty the hard heads choose the voice because a treaty as per NZ has no chance I couldn’t imagine the outrage from those wetting their beds over the thought.

Well he could do with the support and encouragement. ?
Who would have guessed you would agree, most would be astounded if you ever disagreed with him.
As I said I think a treaty is something that has measurable results and obligations.
This voice nonsense as per what Rob says, is just a token gesture, to say we have listened to them, so what.
Tell them to go and sit the corner and come up with something else to talk to Parliament about? Well at least it might cut back the question time bickering. ?

 

[sptrawler]

I never, ever, said it's a waste of money.
As I showed, bipartisan support for a referendum commenced in 2010 as there is no other way of adding words to the Constitution.

You said:
The Voice can make proposals for change which are based on local solutions.
Parliament chooses what it will actually do.

So as I said another pointless exercise and a waste of money, that achieves nothing..

On the contrary, I believe the opposite as indigenous recognition deserves to be part of our Constitution.

For what purpose if it can only produce suggestions, that can be ignored, you are funny.

I thought you might have actually chosen to support the statements you made which I know to be false, so maybe you made the right move to avoid them. Disinformation, obfuscation, and outright lies about the Voice are running rampant and many people are being sucked in.

Oh so now you're adopting the very trait you despise in others, when all else fails play the man.?

I personally do not believe the Voice will get up as the media has now concentrated on the negatives and is running the baseless claim that the Voice is divisive. I see this along the lines of the Republic debate, where most people were in favour until the waters were muddied by complete irrelevances. I hope I am wrong.

That is the good thing about opinions, everyone has one and currently they all carry the same weight.

 

[IFocus]

Well he could do with the support and encouragement. ?
Who would have guessed you would agree, most would be astounded if you ever disagreed with him.
As I said I think a treaty is something that has measurable results and obligations.
This voice nonsense as per what Rob says, is just a token gesture, to say we have listened to them, so what.
Tell them to go and sit the corner and come up with something else to talk to Parliament about? Well at least it might cut back the question time bickering. ?

Polls are showing 50% ish under 54% ish the referendum will fail so you will get your wish so no treaty, no recognition, no public information on what is put forward for change, faceless bureaucrats will continue well done.

Meanwhile NZ have reserved seats, treaty etc who would have though eh

 

[sptrawler]

Polls are showing 50% ish under 54% ish the referendum will fail so you will get your wish so no treaty, no recognition, no public information on what is put forward for change, faceless bureaucrats will continue well done.

Meanwhile NZ have reserved seats, treaty etc who would have though eh

I never trust polls, so I wouldnt call it until it happens.
One thing I have noticed the advert currently showing in Perth, talks about a treaty a voice and 100 years in the making, I think they really needed more time to develop and organise a narrative ATM they seem to be struggling to deliver any message.
The NZ or Canadian model would have been a better play, at least they could show a working model.
I actually wonder if the voice model wasnt designed to fail, kick the can down the road, even if it gets up it does nothing.
If it had been proposed by the Libs, it would have been shouted down as not going far enough, Rob would have canned it. Lol
The issues arent going away, they are only going to get worse, so do it once do it right IMO.

 

[orr]

That is the good thing about opinions, everyone has one and currently they all carry the same weight.

Weight....

Help me out here trawler.... give me some weight...
On your book selves how much Australian history is there? how much have you read? got any critiques?

The truth telling import ot the Ularu Statment from the heart is what cuts to the quick for for the belligerent obsurantists because it may lead to understanding by the larger Australian population.
The Massicars the disposetion the structural racism the theft, centuries long crafted educational propaganda.
All that, you, trawler, and others, now be reduced to a 'pull up ya sox princess's'

Go on trawler give me one Book.

I'll go out on a limb and call you less than a light weight ... I'll say no weight.

 

[sptrawler]

Weight....

Help me out here trawler.... give me some weight...
On your book selves how much Australian history is there? how much have you read? got any critiques?

The truth telling import ot the Ularu Statment from the heart is what cuts to the quick for for the belligerent obsurantists because it may lead to understanding by the larger Australian population.
The Massicars the disposetion the structural racism the theft, centuries long crafted educational propaganda.
All that, you, trawler, and others, now be reduced to a 'pull up ya sox princess's'

Go on trawler give me one Book.

I'll go out on a limb and call you less than a light weight ... I'll say no weight.

You're always good for a laugh orr, you talking about books, it doesn't get funnier than that.
I've spent plenty of time with aboriginals, I actually don't have to read books to understand the issues, when you find your book selves you probably could brush up. Lol

 

[orr]

Did you grow up with a family of them who lived down the road through knew'm though kindergarten primary and high school and post: and watch how racism burnt itself into their being. Two boys two girls all with in two years of my birth date.
You're not born racist you become it. and I watched it and I look back on it and I'll do what I can to change things for the better.

And just quietly you're not helping.

And i've read a **** load since. you got anything?

 

[orr]

A bit of Australian history here trawler;
There's a Hwy that runs between Sydney and Melbourne called the Hume Hwy. It's route was layed out by Hume and Hovell. One was a curreny lad the other a blow-in pompus self inflated pom. The Currency lad took along a 'friend' that he'd grown up with. At around what's now Yass the parties split.
Have a guess which ones went the wrong way?
Your Brexit opinons are a clue.

 

[sptrawler]

Like I said orr, your always good for a laugh, I have spent a lot more time with them than you obviously have and in the communities, so I'm not going to get into a pizzing competition with you and what would you know about the U.K ? I suppose you lived down the road from Boris Johnson. Lol
Let's get back on subject, you still haven't explained what the voice will do, other than what is being done and why it is better than a treaty, which I prefer

Or are you just going to keep dribbling your normal tripe?

 

[orr]

The communities of your experience, was when? since then what has been the their experinence? under the satus quo. Poverty rates incarceration rates life expectancy rates on and on. Your happy with the way things are. all power to you.
A voice will do better than that.
A treaty is not on offer and point to it's place in the statment from the heart?

Some of us have been places.. done stuff. Looked learnt and read.
The BBC did a series 'This Is Modern Art' put together by Micheal Collings ... You might like to watch the first episde, in the first five minutes or so he walks out of his studio in Bethnal Green and down the tube station . I can name the Pub behind him because I managed it for a year just before that filming....... more than enough about me.

You dimmiish yourself with every post. which can only help the greater cause for betterment.

 

[wayneL]

Lovely stuff.

Only the Marxists here have had real experience with the indigenous, apparently.

The rest of our experiences, by virtue of being to the right of Pol Pot, are discounted. They were probably all coconuts anyway, right?