The Voice

[sptrawler]

Yes, so let's just put on a 'rental tax' on every home owner in the country. That would go down well with the electorate wouldn't it ?

It doesn't have to be that, it could be a levy as per the medicare levy and it could be for a defined period, but the aboriginals have to agree to enter into agreed outcomes. Where they take some responsibility for their furtherment, rather than us just throwing money at half ar$ed businesses, with no mutual obligation to making sure they are successful.
Whatever is done the problem isn't going away and the whites just throwing money at them so that their health issues worsen, isn't working and the root cause is they have an excuse, the whites stole our land.
Well sort that out, then make them responsible, giving them a voice to continue to complain isn't the answer, it just acknowledges the problem which we have done endlessly before.

 

[wayneL]

Just my opinion but I think it is the only way to move forward, the aboriginals are saying they believe that the whites took the land off them without compensation, it makes sense that they will always feel aggrieved until they get compensation.
So IMo the voice is just another band aid to kick the can down the road, I also think it is probably about being able to move the tax cost of aboriginal affairs to someone else, but that's another issue.

The pollies need to bite the bullet and work out with the aboriginal reps a way to compensate them, but also place the onus on them to contribute to furthering Australia's interests in the future, rather than being the problem issue they are ATM on so many fronts.

An analogy would be if the local council took your and my properties, then offered us a voice to council, to air your complaints.
I'm sure you and myself would much prefer that they just paid us for the property, or give us adequate compensation, simple really.

We aren't NZ, we have a much bigger issue than they do and we have politicians on both sides that don't want to change the status quo, plus we really should stop looking to other countries to compare ourselves with.
We aren't doing as well with renewables as Norway, we aren't buying as many E.V's as Sweden, we need to start and realise we are in charge of our own issues and man up IMO.
We are fast becoming the worlds greatest wingers.

Whoa there Sapphire!

Who took their land from them? Being immigrants It wasn't you or your family, and as immigrants it certainly wasn't my family either.

How do you differentiate?

What if you have both indigenous and colonist heritage? Should your European blood pay compensation to you indigenous blood?

Should a genuine refugee from Somalia also pay this restitution?

(This already happens via taxation btw)

Such a proposition can only result in rorts and division.

 

[sptrawler]

Whoa there Sapphire!

Who took their land from them? Being immigrants It wasn't you or your family, and as immigrants it certainly wasn't my family either.

How do you differentiate?

What if you have both indigenous and colonist heritage? Should your European blood pay compensation to you indigenous blood?

Should a genuine refugee from Somalia also pay this restitution?

(This already happens via taxation btw)

Such a proposition can only result in rorts and division.

That is how we got to where we are, 20 years ago there were 600,000, now there are 800,000, in 10 years there will be 1.2 million.
They need to get a handle on this and bring it to some sort of conclusion, pretending it will just go away wont happen, that is unless there is a war and China take us over then the issue would be self resolving.
At the moment everyone and their best mate are calling themselves aboriginal, get a ruling happening, get a compensation to the full bloods and get the rest off their ar$es and on the road to meaningful employment, is my call.
This constant BS on and on, is just extrapolating the problem out more and more, it has become a joke and needs resolving once and for all, the voice ain't the way to do it, it's just more BS IMO.
Once the compensation is paid, a refugee from Somalia when they arrive here there wont be a payment, but everyone who is here ATM needs to take one for the team, to finish it IMO.
This woke nonsense will eventually make it happen anyway, so putting off the inevitable only makes it worse, if it is negotiated correctly it would make further claims null and void and extra welfare past an agreed date redundant, then there are measurable outcomes.
I'm not suggesting it is right or wrong, I'm saying this issue needs to have a full stop put after it and saying they are special in the constitution only adds to the problem IMO.
Make a payment, increase taxes to pay off the payment, job and finish.
The way it is going IMO, it will end up as @SirRumpole says an ongoing levy on landowners, which the Govt wouldn't mind, because it takes the problem off their books.
It ain't rocket science, we are being fed a bunny, either make it a one of, or wear it forever is my call.

As usual only my personal thoughts, which are worth about as much as I charge for them. ?
I actually said all this on the forum, back when Kev made the apology, I said use the GFC stimulus as a compensation payment. Nothing has changed, only what it is going to cost.

Based on the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) projections, the number of Indigenous Australians in 2021 was estimated to be 881,600. The Indigenous Australian population is projected to reach about 1.1 million people by 2031 (ABS 2019b).

 

[macca]

Our local land council has maybe 10% local ATSI people (possibly 2000 people probably less?) all the rest are mixed race or blow ins from other mobs.

They currently own land worth at least $20mill, how do we carve that up as an act of reconciliation to bring the stalemate to a close?

 

[sptrawler]

Our local land council has maybe 10% local ATSI people (possibly 2000 people probably less?) all the rest are mixed race or blow ins from other mobs.

They currently own land worth at least $20mill, how do we carve that up as an act of reconciliation to bring the stalemate to a close?

That's exactly right, until they cut through the BS and throw everything in the ring, there cant be a tally summed up, just constant winging, when they have already been given heaps, but that is never mentioned.

 

[Smurf1976]

The pollies need to bite the bullet and work out with the aboriginal reps a way to compensate them, but also place the onus on them to contribute to furthering Australia's interests in the future, rather than being the problem issue they are ATM on so many fronts.

A recent example I'm aware of is a major construction project. Long story short the various approvals etc required an Aboriginal overseer on site at all times, without which work could not proceed. This was to ensure the company complied with conditions etc.

End result was a lot of 4 hour working days and more than a few where no work was done at all.

Meanwhile the workers actually doing the job were being paid normal full days no matter what happened.

Australia quite simply can't afford this sort of thing. Fair enough to protect heritage and so on but that approach is just ridiculous.

No comment as to what company's project it was but in the energy industry.

 

[sptrawler]

A recent example I'm aware of is a major construction project. Long story short the various approvals etc required an Aboriginal overseer on site at all times, without which work could not proceed. This was to ensure the company complied with conditions etc.

End result was a lot of 4 hour working days and more than a few where no work was done at all.

Meanwhile the workers actually doing the job were being paid normal full days no matter what happened.

Australia quite simply can't afford this sort of thing. Fair enough to protect heritage and so on but that approach is just ridiculous.

No comment as to what company's project it was but in the energy industry.

And it is obviously going to get worse unless it is sorted. It wont get sorted unless an agreed outcome is found and I'm sure it wont be a voice to parliament.

 

[wayneL]

And it is obviously going to get worse unless it is sorted. It wont get sorted unless an agreed outcome is found and I'm sure it wont be a voice to parliament.

Restitution ain't it either. That is as divisive as it comes.

I think we all want to lend a hand, but throwing money about has proven to be ineffective. We've tried that to the tube of freaking billions.

It's not the answer.

And at the risk of stating the obvious, a traditional lifestyle doesn't require money, " never did, never will do".

That leaves non tradition indigenous............

 

[StockyGuy]

A win for the Voice could backfire, also. If it becomes abundantly clear to even the simplest citizen that every statement from the Voice is a brazen grab for more of the taxpayer's money, for more special consideration, knocking down our statues, for changing the accepted names of our places and so on, then the general public's sympathy for the indigenous plight might be sorely tested. It could be more polarising than is perceived.

A Coalition in opposition (even a Labor one for that matter, in time) willing to cut spending on the ATSI sector, and tell a rapacious Voice to basically "talk to the hand, girlfriend", might have a path back to power. OTOH, maaaybe a prudent ATSI Voice might be able to keep their demands more low key and mitigate that risk of alienating those who supported their cause. Lol, MAYBE!

 

[sptrawler]

Restitution ain't it either. That is as divisive as it comes.

I think we all want to lend a hand, but throwing money about has proven to be ineffective. We've tried that to the tube of freaking billions.

It's not the answer.

And at the risk of stating the obvious, a traditional lifestyle doesn't require money, " never did, never will do".

That leaves non tradition indigenous............

Agree completely, but until you get them to put a line under what they want, it is a never ending wish list only limited by what can be dreamed up next.

 

[wayneL]

The shape of things to come, whether the Apartheid gets voted in or not.

https://www.news.com.au/finance/economy/australian-economy/furious-wa-farmers-fear-sweeping-new-aboriginal-cultural-heritage-laws-will-hold-us-to-ransom/news-story/6886462f8ef6f2dac076d86a6704cea0

 

[wayneL]

Saying the quiet part out loud

 

[wayneL]

Go Pauline!

 

[Logique2]

Not a single word was relevant to the referendum proposal.
But luckily for you that type of post is not so rare in this thread.

Yet another deflection. I'm not interested in arguing with ChatGPT.

About the Referendum: .'Marry in Haste, Repent at Leisure'. .And folks, you will repent, most especially the farmers and landholders. Oh, and the taxpayers.

 

[wayneL]

Dodgy AF

 

[JohnDe]

Regardless of the outcome of the referendum, the sun will still rise and life will go on.

Burney plays down growing voice scepticism

Indigenous Australians Minister Linda Burney says she has “great faith” the voice to parliament will succeed in a referendum despite polls showing dwindling support.

Ms Burney played down growing scepticism among voters about the voice, declaring Aboriginal legends such as Eddie Mabo also had “mountains to climb” ahead of winning support for reforms that benefited Indigenous Australians.

She said the Yes campaign will be in full swing when legislation enabling the referendum passes parliament this week.

“We always knew that this was going to be difficult. This is a marathon, it's not a sprint,” Ms Burney told Sky News.

“This is going to be hard but now that we have almost finished the work in the parliament, the campaigns will kick in, and I think it's fantastic that people want to know more.

“It tells me that there is a thirst for more information on the referendum.”

Ms Burney said the voice would provide practical benefits to Indigenous Australians.

“What are we really saying here? We’re saying we are establishing an advisory body that will give practical advice on things like health, education and housing; things that actually affect First Nations people disproportionately.

“There is nothing radical in that proposal.”

Ms Burney said spreading Donald Trump-like dishonesty was the “modus operandi” of the no campaign.

“They are intent on selling fear. They are intent on polarising people,” she said.

She conceded cost-of-living concerns were making it harder for Australians to be persuaded on the voice.

“There is no doubt that things are pretty tough for people out there in middle Australia,” she said.

“You've got interest rates, you've got food prices, petrol prices

“I completely accept that there are first issues for people like cost of living, but this issue is also about making us a better country as a whole. And I think people will embrace it that way.”

Even after comments that appear to be designed to alienate and cause division, like the Hon Linda Burney's comment "spreading Donald Trump-like dishonesty was the “modus operandi” of the no campaign", I believe that we are a mature enough society to find the truth.

However, regardless of whose truth we take, part of the process of getting it and believing it is to find out as much as possible. A referendum process must and should include both sides of the question to debate and discuss in equal and fair measure.

My caution side tells me that if part of the discussion requires extra assistance in the form of belittling comments there is something to fear with the process.

Each day I read something new from the Yes and No sides, and I find nuggets of truth and determination from both. I love the Aboriginal Australia, I believe that it is important for our strength, determination and future prospects. But just because I love something does not mean that I will blindly follow the powerful and the loud.

I will continue to gather information and share it so that I and others are better informed for when the time comes for us to vote. Because at the end of it The Indigenous voice to parliament will be a permanent, independent, representative advisory body for First Nations people to advise the Australian government.

What is the Indigenous voice to parliament?

The Indigenous voice to parliament will be a permanent, independent, representative advisory body for First Nations people to advise the Australian government on the views of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. Here are all the details and facts you need to know about the referendum.

Australians will be asked vote “yes” or “no” in a referendum on an Indigenous voice to parliament later this year. The voice to parliament proposal requires Australians to decide whether they agree to change the nation’s constitution to allow the new body to advise government on policy decisions it makes.

The Indigenous voice to parliament has both strong proponents and opponents as well as those who want to understand how it would work and what the structure and principles would be.

This article explains the constitutional meaning, outlines more detail and offers clarity on the primary issues Australians will be asked to make a decision on.

What is the voice to parliament?

The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice is also known as the Indigenous voice to parliament or simply the voice.

The Indigenous voice to parliament will be a permanent, independent, representative advisory body for First Nations people to advise the Australian parliament and government on the views of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.

In practical terms it will mean a group of Indigenous people are chosen specifically to have a say, offer opinions and feedback on laws, policies and programs that directly affect First Nations people.

What would a voice to parliament involve?

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has confirmed an Indigenous voice to parliament will be able to advise executive government as well as federal parliament if a referendum is successful later this year.

Referendum working group member Tony McAvoy says the voice will not have a veto power over the parliament and will work alongside existing organisations and traditional structures.

Mr Albanese said he was trying to “change the country” by ensuring Australians recognised their Indigenous peoples and the nation’s history.

The voice will have power of intervention in commonwealth public service decisions and will be able to seek “early advice” from public servants as they develop policy.

What referendum question will Australians be asked to vote on and when?

The voice question, released by Mr Albanese on March 23 reads:

“A proposed law: to alter the constitution to recognise the First Peoples of Australia by establishing an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice. Do you approve this proposed alteration?”

The referendum will take place between October and December.

How much does a referendum cost?

The estimated cost of holding a referendum is believed to be about $170m. In addition, money is being raised by both sides of the Yes and No campaigns to get their respective messages out.

What are the proposed amendments to the Constitution to accommodate the voice?

The Prime Minister’s proposed amendments to the Constitution are:

“Chapter IX Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples

129 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice

In recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia:

There shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice;

The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice may make representations to the Parliament and the Executive Government of the Commonwealth on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples;

The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws with respect to matters relating to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, including its composition, functions, powers and procedures.”

The Albanese government will put these proposals to a joint parliamentary committee and plan a vote on the Constitution Alteration Bill in June.

The referendum must have bipartisan support for the vote to occur. The Coalition is divided on what the voice should look like.

How will the voice be designed?

The Prime Minister has revealed nine design principles of the new proposed voice which include that it will be able to respond to requests for representations from the parliament and the executive government, and will have its own resources to research, develop and make representations.

Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus said the finalised wording of the voice would effectively legislate “broad scope” and powers of an Indigenous voice to parliament should the referendum be successful.

Who can vote in the voice referendum?

Like federal elections, it is compulsory by law for all eligible Australian citizens aged 18 and older to enrol and vote in referendums. Currently, incarcerated people are ineligible to vote.

How would members of the voice to parliament be chosen?

Members of the body will be selected by First Nations communities and not appointed by the executive, and will serve on the voice for a fixed period of time, and will be chosen by each of the states, territories and Torres Strait Islands. It will also have balanced gender representation at the national level, and will be subject to standard governance and reporting requirements to ensure transparency and accountability.

Who will oversee the voice?

The Indigenous voice to parliament is expected to fall under the scope of the National Anti-Corruption Commission, under updated key design principles expected to be released on Thursday. Sources close to the referendum working group were tight-lipped ahead of the announcement but The Australian understands the NACC will have scope over the voice body.

When was the referendum for Australia to become a republic?

Australia held a referendum for a republic on November 6 1999, featuring two proposed constitutional changes:

“A proposed law: To alter the Constitution to establish the Commonwealth of Australia as a republic with the Queen and Governor-General being replaced by a President appointed by a two-thirds majority of the members of the Commonwealth Parliament.”

And; “A proposed law: To alter the Constitution to insert a preamble.”

Voters ultimately chose to retain the monarchy.

In 1967 a referendum changed the Constitution so the commonwealth could make laws for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.

What is the Uluru Statement from the Heart?

The idea of the voice was brought forth by the Uluru Statement from the Heart — a document calling for greater recognition of Indigenous people. It was written by First Nations people from around Australia and released in 2017.

The statement also calls for Australians to “walk together to build a better future” and establish a Makarrata Commission for the purpose of treaty making and truth-telling.

Who are Yes23?

Yes23 is the leading campaign group in favour of enshrining a voice in the Constitution and claims to have 20,000 volunteers.

Why do we need a First Nations Voice?

Mr Albanese argues the voice will “strengthen parliament’s understanding not supplant its authority”, and argued it will improve outcomes for Indigenous peoples.

“This is not about symbolism, this is about recognition,” Mr Albanese said. “This is about making a practical difference, which we have a responsibility to do.”

Indigenous Affairs Minister Linda Burney said the voice will help policy makers make better policies to help Indigenous peoples achieve better outcomes.

Referendum working group member Megan Davis said Indigenous people had a right to be consulted on laws and policies made about them.

“When we ran the dialogues all over Australia, our people spoke about not being listened to and not being heard,” Ms Davis said.

But opponents are sceptical it will deliver any practical outcomes.

Country Liberal Party Senator Jacinta Price says the voice will be just “another bureaucracy that will trample on the voices” of Indigenous people and only “represent the elite”.

Leading No campaigner Warren Mundine said the voice would “be spending millions of dollars and not fix one iota on the ground”.

Price says the voice is “walking on very dangerous ground” with the body able to advise the executive government.

“Given that there is reference to the opportunity for the voice to make representations to the executive, suggests that they have a power that is basically stronger than a cabinet minister,” Senator Price said on March 23.

“There is no guarantee, they cannot guarantee, that they will absolutely not be challenged in the high court.”

What is the Opposition’s position on the voice under Peter Dutton?

The Liberal party room has voted to campaign against the voice model put forward by the Albanese government.

Liberal leader Peter Dutton says Mr Albanese’s Indigenous voice will change Australian democracy, require thousands of public servants to be hired and cost billions to “run a new arm of the government” without improving outcomes for Indigenous Australians.

The Opposition Leader has launched his political offensive to sink the voice after formally binding his frontbench to the No case and will make any government refusal to answer questions on the operation of the proposed advisory body a key feature of his campaign.

Mr Dutton, a supporter of constitutional recognition of indigenous Australians, will advance an alternative model to create local and regional voices through legislation, arguing this approach would more effectively advocate for Aboriginal communities.

Under the Dutton model, local and regional voices would have their remit narrowly targeted via legislation to focus solely on practical, community-based measures to improve outcomes for Indigenous Australians rather than giving a national body free rein to make representations on any issue affecting Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islanders.

The local bodies would report federally rather than to state governments, but the model could be adjusted as needed over time by the federal parliament. It would sit outside the Constitution.

“The Liberal Party model will limit the local and regional bodies to issues specific to improving lives and outcomes locally. It has no business in defence, RBA deliberations, energy and environment policy,” Mr Dutton told The Weekend Australian. “It will be in legislation so it can be improved over time.

But not all Liberals are on board.

On Aprill 11, the federal opposition’s Indigenous Australians and legal affairs spokesman Julian Leeser announced he would resign from the Liberal Party’s frontbench over its position on the Indigenous voice to parliament.

Mr Leeser has worked on various models for an Indigenous voice to parliament and the executive government for nearly a decade.

The highest-ranking Liberal in office, Tasmanian Premier Jeremy Rockliff, says he will campaign “vigorously” for a constitutionally enshrined Indigenous voice to parliament with some state Liberal leaders refusing to join Peter Dutton’s No campaign.

In Western Australia, the opposition is led by the Nationals whose leader, Shane Love, supports the voice. WA Liberal leader Libby Mettam will also be supporting the Yes campaign.

In Mr Dutton’s home state of Queensland, LNP leader David Crisafulli said he still had an “open mind” about the voice and encouraged others to do the same.In a joint statement, Victorian Liberal leader John Pesutto and Nationals leader Peter Walsh said their parties also had an “open mind” on the Albanese government’s proposed constitutional amendment.

The Australian constitution has served us well during my 56 years of life. Our laws ensure that all people are treated equally, and if they are not we have processes in place to protect and improve.

The fear is that making a change to the constitution which will allocate a power of some form to a group that believe themselves a seperate nation within a nation is a door into the unknown.

We are told by the Yes side that it is only recognition of the aboriginal people into our constitution, and we are told by the No side that it is a form of power distribution.

As Australian citizens do we not all have a right to equality regardless of class and race? I believe we all do, so why are some wanting to create a new category of people in the constitution? From what I understand it is so that poverty, poor living conditions, health issues and racism can be overcome. Recognition and the voice will help policy makers make better policies to help Indigenous peoples achieve better outcomes.

How? Who will people be chosen to be the voice in parliament? Will there be elections? What are the rules for selection of people wanting to b part of the voice? Can any Australian citizen be part of the voice group?

"it is misleading to suggest that Indigenous Australians currently have no voice to parliament when each Indigenous Australian has an equal vote to anyone else and, importantly, each state and territory has a minister for Aboriginal affairs, and federally we have a minister for Indigenous Australians. These portfolios liaise directly with many Indigenous stakeholders. Indigenous Australians, like all Australians, have many voices to parliament already."​

The so-called voice to parliament, enshrined in the much-praised Uluru Statement from the Heart, claims to establish a constitutionally guaranteed Indigenous voicein our legislative and executive arms of government. This, according to its advocates, will ensure that the plight of Indigenous Australians is impossible to ignore.

By saying so-called voice, I mean no disrespect, but it is misleading to suggest that Indigenous Australians currently have no voice to parliament when each Indigenous Australian has an equal vote to anyone else and, importantly, each state and territory has a minister for Aboriginal affairs, and federally we have a minister for Indigenous Australians.

These portfolios liaise directly with many Indigenous stakeholders. Indigenous Australians, like all Australians, have many voices to parliament already.

I and many others am simply not convinced that this so-called voice will achieve anything positive beyond a very short-lived rush of joy for those in favour of it.

More seriously, though, I think the voice to parliament will actually prove to be detrimental to the cause of Indigenous disadvantage, for it will beget divisiveness and cynicism, and its politics will prove to be a distraction from the very practical challenges of closing the gaps in health, education, domestic violence, substance abuse, employment and income.

Other countries that have adopted similar approaches have borne bad fruit.

Take the Waitangi Tribunal in New Zealand, which has direct veto power over certain legislation. This discriminatory innovation to the New Zealand government system has expanded over time and has contributed to divisive racial politics. We’ve got to be wiser here.

Despite the near-universal praise heaped on the Uluru Statement from the Heart, its words, if they were to be taken seriously by Indigenous Australians, are actually misleading and highly detrimental. Most notably, the document declares Indigenous Australians to be “powerless”, and that “constitutional reforms” are the only way to “empower our people”, and that Indigenous Australians currently do not have “power over our destiny”.

It is bad enough to be saying to a generation of Indigenous Australians that they currently have no control over their destiny, but what are Indigenous youths to conclude about their agency over their future if the referendum fails? Inseparable from the voice to parliament is the question of a treaty, and treaties very often involve the establishment of separate, autonomous Indigenous territories with massive taxpayer funding.

Certainly this has been the case with Australian discussions of a treaty – we are talking about a radical move.

The Uluru Statement itself calls for a “better future based on … self-determination”. The phrase self-determination is a barely veiled reference to a treaty between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians. Indeed, the Uluru Statement calls for a “Makarrata Commission”, Makarrata being a term historically referring to a treaty between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians.

In 2021 Anthony Albanese, now the major champion of the voice to parliament, said: “The voice is the bedrock upon which we must build. I want a voice and truth, then treaty.” I think we need to take the Prime Minister at his word. I also believe he should, in the interests of transparency, explain exactly what that three-step process of voice, treaty and truth-telling will be, and how he believes it will “close the gap” rather than widen divisions.

If the voice is step one on this path to a treaty between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians, then we can rightly expect a perpetual call for a such a treaty. And given that most Australians will not be sympathetic to such an extreme reform, how will this not beget perpetual grievance and cynicism among many Aboriginal Australians? All the while the gaps between Indigenous Australians will remain, with the politics of the voice overshadowing the everyday needs of Indigenous Australians much as today the question of changing the date of Australia Day gets far more media attention than the horrific rates of domestic violence and child abuse in remote communities. We don’t need more distractions from the real issues.

I am encouraged by Indigenous Australians such as senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price, businessman Nyunggai Warren Mundine and academic Anthony Dillon, whose passion for Indigenous welfare is undeniable yet who prefer practical and tried public policy as the best means to close the gap.

For example, in 2003 alcohol restrictions were introduced to the Aurukun region in western Cape York in far north Queensland, resulting in a sharp decline in murders and suicides, and a 90 per cent decline in people presenting in hospitals for suturing for injuries sustained in fights.

But the current government scrapped the cashless welfare card in many dysfunctional communities that prevented money from being spent on alcohol (and gambling) rather than food for families. It was scrapped despite earnest Indigenous voices – led by Price – crying out for its continuation.

In The Politics of Suffering, a classic discussion of Indigenous policy in Australia, anthropologist and linguist Peter Sutton regretfully wrote of “an apparent correlation between the progressiveness of policy and the degree of (Indigenous) community disaster”. I’m sorry to say that I foresee much the same for this so-called voice to parliament: it will further entrench a sense of irresolvable grievance among many Indigenous Australians and, worse, become a distraction from the real problems that require practical policy initiatives.

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/inquirer/indigenous-voice-to-parliament-will-be-a-distraction-from-the-real-problems/news-story/f783bdaeeea2408613af2142dfb2b3f8

 

[JohnDe]

Vote Yes to the voice and make history, says PM​

Anthony Albanese says the passing of the Constitutional Amendment Bill in the Senate means Australians had the chance to “say yes to reconciliation and yes to constitutional recognition of First Nations people”.

The Prime Minister quoted from the Uluru Statement from the Heart which calls for non-Indigenous Australians to “walk with us in a movement of the Australian people for a better future”.

“Powerful words, a gracious request,” Mr Albanese said.
“And I say to my fellow Australians: parliaments pass laws, but it is people that make history.

“This is your time, your chance, your opportunity to be a part of making history.

“It will be a moment of national unity, a chance to make our nation even greater.

“A gracious chapter in the great story of Australia.

“This change isn't about detracting from the 122 years of our democracy. As the Solicitor-General in his written advice says clearly; it enhances that system.”

Mr Albanese said the voice referendum was a “once-in-a-lifetime opportunity” that will bring the nation closer together.

“What shines so brightly at the very core of its gracious request is the desire to bring us all closer together as a people reconciled,” he said.

“This once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to lift our great nation even higher.

“Recognition of this continent's first people in our nation's constitution, listening to their voices on issues that impact them, making concrete practical change that makes a difference to people's lives, people making themselves heard across our great nation.

“In the regions and beyond in the remotest corners of our vast and beautiful continent, that we share with the oldest continuous culture on earth.

“All those voices rising across Australia like the headwaters of 1000 creeks and rivers joining into a mighty current – a chance to walk together as one to a better future.”

By RHIANNON DOWN

 

[mullokintyre]

“All those voices rising across Australia like the headwaters of 1000 creeks and rivers joining into a mighty current – a chance to walk together as one to a better future.”

By RHIANNON DOWN

Good to see Rhiannon getting some of her work published.
I went to school with two of her Brothers, Ben and Eider.
Mick

 

[SirRumpole]

Linda Birney just said in Parliament that her life expectancy is 8 years shorter than the Deputy Leader of the Opposition.

Based on what ?

A well fed, well nourished Aboriginal person has the same life expectancy as anyone else in the country.

If not, the difference must be genetic, a factor which is above the ability of anyone to solve.

I wish people would stick to facts, not emotional nonsense.

 

[Smurf1976]

I believe that we are a mature enough society to find the truth.

In theory I agree.

But when I look at the mess that's been made in other areas, over an extended period, it seems that finding the truth can take an extremely long time.

To the point that a child born the day the issue commences may well be retired by the time it's resolved and I mean that quite literally. We certainly have other areas where we're still sorting out issues from decades ago.

Therein lies the problem. It gets sorted eventually but most will be more concerned about what happens in their own lifetime and these things can move incredibly slowly.