The Voice

[Smurf1976]

The Voice has nothing to do with what goes on in NZ

That may be so but the entire Western world does follow broadly similar political trends driven by mass culture and economics (among other influences).

Plenty of examples throughout recent decades where one could look at Australian politics and note that it's little more than a direct copy of something straight from London or Washington. Same between the states, one state does something then the others copy with a slightly altered version.

Personally I remain undecided but from observation, I think a lot of people are wary of creating another institution which outlives its purpose. That, in short, is the comment I've heard from several.

That plus I perceive there's a frustration with politics in general. A thinking that OK, government's doing this or that but how does it help the ordinary person? How does it actually fix problems?

If there was a specific plan to "close the gap" with stated objectives, a proposed means of achieving them and an indicative timeframe then I expect there'd be overwhelming support.

 

[rederob]

That may be so but the entire Western world does follow broadly similar political trends driven by mass culture and economics (among other influences).

That has nothing to do with a referendum to recognise first peoples.

Personally I remain undecided but from observation, I think a lot of people are wary of creating another institution which outlives its purpose. That, in short, is the comment I've heard from several.

The Voice is no different to any lobby group. It only has the ability to influence government through informed proposals from people who are directly affected by policy. Why people should be wary - as you say - of a body that suggests betterment smacks of racism.

That plus I perceive there's a frustration with politics in general. A thinking that OK, government's doing this or that but how does it help the ordinary person? How does it actually fix problems?

This is the excuse of those wilfully ignorant - those like @SirRumpole - who find all sorts of reasons that have no relevance to what the Voice proposes to achieve. The Voice has nothing to do with politics, although Dutton has turned it into an ideological issue from its its previous bipartisan support. And the Voice clearly attempts to address the issues - ie "actually fix problems" as you pose the question - that have been constantly highlighted in Closing the Gap.

If there was a specific plan to "close the gap" with stated objectives, a proposed means of achieving them and an indicative timeframe then I expect there'd be overwhelming support.

The objectives and time frames in Closing the Gap are clearly enunciated, eg

Target​

By 2031, increase the proportion of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander youth (15-24 years) who are in employment, education or training to 67 per cent.​

Proponents of the Voice have identified the continued failure of governments to introduce policies that are targeted to address the often localised and specific issues of especially remote communities. In other words, the Voice is a specific plan to move forward.
This thread, which regurgitates lies, distractions and disinformation is typical of what we now find in social media, and typifies sentiments that barely existed before Dutton grubbied the agenda.

 

[SirRumpole]

In other words, the Voice is a specific plan to move forward.

No it's not. It's simply a plan to allow people the rights to representation that every citizen including indigenous already have.

And it will be entrenched in the Constitution for one group only.

By all means let anyone form a representative body, but its success should depend on results not be just a sinecure for some Canberra based bureaucrats.

 

[Sean K]

What Thomas Mayo, one of the architects of the Voice referendum proposal and signatory of the Uluru Statement, thinks about what The Voice is going to be and it's powers:

– “We are sick of governments not listening to our voice. We’re going to use the rule book of the nation to force them. There is nothing more powerful than building a First Nations’ voice, a black institution – a black political force to be reckoned with”.

– We will “keep going until we change the system, until we tear down the institutions that harm our people”.

– “We also to pay respects to the elders of the Communist Party, who I think, without a doubt, have played a very important role in our activism”.

– “You know this is the first step. It’s a vital step. Pay the rent, for example. You know, how do we do that in a way that is transparent and that it actually sees reparations and compensation to aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people”.

– “The power in the voice is that it creates the ability for First Nations to go forth with coherent positions on what legislation needs to be created; what legislation needs to be amended and punish politicians that ignore our advice”.

 

[TimeISmoney]

That has nothing to do with a referendum to recognise first peoples.

The Voice is no different to any lobby group. It only has the ability to influence government through informed proposals from people who are directly affected by policy. Why people should be wary - as you say - of a body that suggests betterment smacks of racism.

This is the excuse of those wilfully ignorant - those like @SirRumpole - who find all sorts of reasons that have no relevance to what the Voice proposes to achieve. The Voice has nothing to do with politics, although Dutton has turned it into an ideological issue from its its previous bipartisan support. And the Voice clearly attempts to address the issues - ie "actually fix problems" as you pose the question - that have been constantly highlighted in Closing the Gap.

The objectives and time frames in Closing the Gap are clearly enunciated, eg

Target​

By 2031, increase the proportion of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander youth (15-24 years) who are in employment, education or training to 67 per cent.​

Proponents of the Voice have identified the continued failure of governments to introduce policies that are targeted to address the often localised and specific issues of especially remote communities. In other words, the Voice is a specific plan to move forward.
This thread, which regurgitates lies, distractions and disinformation is typical of what we now find in social media, and typifies sentiments that barely existed before Dutton grubbied the agenda.

It's the already in high places indigenous that will benefit from it the most, like the elders that receive the million dollar funding and disperse of it how they like. It's not going to address the sexual assaults, poor education, and alcoholism that plague remote communities. Politicians already have advisers for indigenous people, the voice isn't going to twist anyone's hand in forcing policy.

 

[rederob]

No it's not. It's simply a plan to allow people the rights to representation that every citizen including indigenous already have.

It's not about RIGHTS.
You remain ignorant of the Voice in every way.

And it will be entrenched in the Constitution for one group only.

Because first nations people are exactly that. There are no other groups with the claim of ATSI peoples.
Again, your ignorance shines through.

By all means let anyone form a representative body, but its success should depend on results not be just a sinecure for some Canberra based bureaucrats.

Your opinion is poorly founded as the Voice is not a bureaucracy.
You have posted so much nonsense here it beggars belief!

 

[rederob]

It's the already in high places indigenous that will benefit from it the most, like the elders that receive the million dollar funding and disperse of it how they like. It's not going to address the sexual assaults, poor education, and alcoholism that plague remote communities. Politicians already have advisers for indigenous people, the voice isn't going to twist anyone's hand in forcing policy.

You would do well to read why the Voice came about and how it proposes to effect change.
If you were right then we would not need to worry about Closing the Gap.

 

[TimeISmoney]

You would do well to read why the Voice came about and how it proposes to effect change.
If you were right then we would not need to worry about Closing the Gap.

It just isn't going to do anything to help the people that really need it, you can't have one body representing every mob all over Australia. Different communities face different problems, they have different beliefs and different local laws. It's also a conflict of interest to start with as certain individuals in frontline politics would rather see their own mob benefit first.

 

[sptrawler]

The problem with the voice, as is shown by the confusion on here, it is coming across as policy on the run rather than a well thought out piece of legislation, which people would expect it to be if they are going to vote on it.
As I posted even Albo has trouble articulating exactly what it all means, especially when he says "oh that will be worked out later" even the left leaning commentator was confused.
It is ok for those heavily invested in the Labor Party trusting their representatives implicitly, most Australian's want to know what they are signing up for and aren't going to rely on blind faith and good intentions, public opinion appears to be falling away quickly.

 

[rederob]

It just isn't going to do anything to help the people that really need it, you can't have one body representing every mob all over Australia.

It has been presented by the people who really need to address their specific issues.
Again, read about rather than keep shooting yourself in the foot.

Different communities face different problems, they have different beliefs and different local laws.

Exactly why the Voice is being put forward.

It's also a conflict of interest to start with as certain individuals in frontline politics would rather see their own mob benefit first.

No idea what that means.
The Voice sees ATSI people helping resolve ATSI issues.

 

[rederob]

The problem with the voice, as is shown by the confusion on here, it is coming across as policy on the run rather than a well thought out piece of legislation, which people would expect it to be if they are going to vote on it.

The Voice is about a referendum.
Referendums need to be legislated.
There's nothing hard about the Voice, except for people who want to lie about, misrepresent and misdirect its purpose.

As I posted even Albo has trouble articulating exactly what it all means, especially when he says "oh that will be worked out later" even the left leaning commentator was confused.

Given Parliament has to settle the mechanics, it will be worked out later. How many times does Albo need to repeat that comment?
There's nothing mysterious about that given that's what all parliaments do and there's already a roadmap laid out.

It is ok for those heavily invested in the Labor Party trusting their representatives implicitly, most Australian's want to know what they are signing up for ....

The ads in the media say what the Voice is about. It's a really easy proposition to understand and has zip to do with politics, unless you are bolted on to ideologies and believe the drivel Dutton spews.

 

[sptrawler]

The Voice is about a referendum.
Referendums need to be legislated.
There's nothing hard about the Voice, except for people who want to lie about, misrepresent and misdirect its purpose.

Given Parliament has to settle the mechanics, it will be worked out later. How many times does Albo need to repeat that comment?
There's nothing mysterious about that given that's what all parliaments do and there's already a roadmap laid out.

The ads in the media say what the Voice is about. It's a really easy proposition to understand and has zip to do with politics, unless you are bolted on to ideologies and believe the drivel Dutton spews.

Obviously it ain't working, because I actually thought it would get through on good intentions as did the gay marriage, the general public is confused and the longer it goes on the more they are becoming nervous.
It has been handled extremely badly I feel, but then again maybe it was meant to be, who knows.

I think it would have been far better to get the mechanics sorted and then present it to the people for them to vote on, rather than get the people to vote and then work out the mechanics, sounds a bit ar$e about to me, but as I said maybe it was meant to be that way in the first place.
Which is what I mentioned at the beginning of this thread, so nothing much has changed.

 

[TimeISmoney]

It has been presented by the people who really need to address their specific issues.
Again, read about rather than keep shooting yourself in the foot.

Exactly why the Voice is being put forward.

No idea what that means.
The Voice sees ATSI people helping resolve ATSI issues.

There have been many elders from remote communities coming forwards on this issue, none of these people promoting the voice have even been to their community let alone care about it to see the problems they have. There are already advisers on indigenous issues, you're going to make up another body where advisers that have spent the majority of their lives in cities voice their opinion on Australia wide indigenous affairs that politicians are still going to vet a decision from. I just see it as a waste of money, the voice isn't going to force the hand of politics to do anything it can't already do. How this body is established and the power it has to alter govt policy is still controlled by the Australian govt, you'll still have the same senators in cabinet voting 'for and against' policy change.

 

[SirRumpole]

There have been many elders from remote communities coming forwards on this issue, none of these people promoting the voice have even been to their community let alone care about it to see the problems they have. There are already advisers on indigenous issues, you're going to make up another body where advisers that have spent the majority of their lives in cities voice their opinion on Australia wide indigenous affairs that politicians are still going to vet a decision from. I just see it as a waste of money, the voice isn't going to force the hand of politics to do anything it can't already do. How this body is established and the power it has to alter govt policy is still controlled by the Australian govt, you'll still have the same senators in cabinet voting 'for and against' policy change.

Yes , I think the big fear is that the the grass roots people who need the reforms the most will be subservient to the radical campaigners like Mayo and Langton who are more interested in political outcomes than basic services.

 

[sptrawler]

Yes , I think the big fear is that the the grass roots people who need the reforms the most will be subservient to the radical campaigners like Mayo and Langton who are more interested in political outcomes than basic services.

Yes there is currently and has been previously, a huge amount of money spent on the aboriginal issue at both State and Federal level, that money has gone somewhere and it obviously isn't to the grass roots people So maybe an ICAC, or Royal Commission might be a better avenue, than a voice to tell the people in Canberra, you still aren't listening.
Maybe finding out where the money is disappearing might be better, than having the grass roots people saying it isn't getting to us, I think everyone in Canberra is already fully aware of that.

So instead of investigating what is going wrong, we are going to have a vote to decide if we can do better, but we don't know where it is going wrong, as if.

Put a camera above the trough and see which pigs have their nose in it, seems like a good start to me. ?

 

[rederob]

There have been many elders from remote communities coming forwards on this issue, none of these people promoting the voice have even been to their community let alone care about it to see the problems they have. There are already advisers on indigenous issues, you're going to make up another body where advisers that have spent the majority of their lives in cities voice their opinion on Australia wide indigenous affairs that politicians are still going to vet a decision from. I just see it as a waste of money, the voice isn't going to force the hand of politics to do anything it can't already do. How this body is established and the power it has to alter govt policy is still controlled by the Australian govt, you'll still have the same senators in cabinet voting 'for and against' policy change.

You have no idea what the Voice is about and yet you continue to post!
Get yourself up to speed and stem the bleeding from your self inflicted wounds.

 

[rederob]

I think it would have been far better to get the mechanics sorted and then present it to the people for them to vote on, rather than get the people to vote and then work out the mechanics, sounds a bit ar$e about to me, but as I said maybe it was meant to be that way in the first place.

Why?
The mechanics can and will change and, in any case, the framework has already been set out.
This has been made clear in the Voice.
It seems the people who express concern about the Voice have no idea what is involved.

 

[sptrawler]

Why?
The mechanics can and will change and, in any case, the framework has already been set out.
This has been made clear in the Voice.
It seems the people who express concern about the Voice have no idea what is involved.

If everything had been made clear, there wouldnt be an issue. The only two that appear clear on the issues are yourself and IFocus.
Which really does highlight the poor presentation and preperation, which is a trait of some.

 

[rederob]

If anything had been made clear, there wouldnt be an issue. The only two that appear clear on the issues are yourself and IFocus.

What aspect of the Voice referendum is not clear, excluding those matters the Voice has already indicated are matters for Parliament to determine?

 

[sptrawler]

What aspect of the Voice referendum is not clear, excluding those matters the Voice has already indicated are matters for Parliament to determine?

I guess you answered your own question.