The Voice

[JohnDe]

IMO one of the most sensible politicians we've ever had in this country:

I was involved in a bit of a Pub Test on the weekend, went to a pub in a suburb that has a mix of working middle class and high income. After our dinner the conversation drifted to the Voice, a resounding NO from all. I was surprised, thought there would be a few Yes people in the crowd.

 

[IFocus]

Nothing worse than a 1/2 right article afraid he is serious wrong on key points

 

[rederob]

I'm just going to keep quoting your ad homs. RUOK?

It's a shame you never learned what an ad hom is.
But I get it that you were not able to show you had a point.

 

[rederob]

Your arguments simply parrot the opinions of proponents of the voice who have an interest in sanitising the proposal to a level of simplicity that they think will fool the public into an emotional response without asking hard questions.

My comments reflect the work of the Referendum Council and those who contributed before, and after.
What you call hard questions merely reflect the role that Parliament will play, but you can't accept that!

Well when it comes to permanent enshrinement in the Constitution that simply won't wash.

Yet the proposal passed the test of most Constitutional experts.

SeanK had the right idea, legislate it first and if it works then put it to a referendum because as it is we are supposed to trust politicians who keep screwing us over.

How could you support legislation when you refuse to acknowledge the role of Parliament in putting up that level of detail? In simple terms, you are happy for the level of detail to be enshrined in legislation that you have no idea about beforehand, but not if it's the same legislation as would appear in the Voice. Unless it was legislated first????

 

[SirRumpole]

My comments reflect the work of the Referendum Council and those who contributed before, and after.
What you call hard questions merely reflect the role that Parliament will play, but you can't accept that!

Yet the proposal passed the test of most Constitutional experts.

How could you support legislation when you refuse to acknowledge the role of Parliament in putting up that level of detail? In simple terms, you are happy for the level of detail to be enshrined in legislation that you have no idea about beforehand, but not if it's the same legislation as would appear in the Voice. Unless it was legislated first????

Legislation is not enshrined, it can be changed. ATSIC was legislated and abolished when it became corrupt or at least it's CEO did.

So legislate The Voice, let it operate for 5 years and see if it makes a difference, if it does, keep it, if not disband it.

 

[Sean K]

I was involved in a bit of a Pub Test on the weekend, went to a pub in a suburb that has a mix of working middle class and high income. After our dinner the conversation drifted to the Voice, a resounding NO from all. I was surprised, thought there would be a few Yes people in the crowd.

It's in the 30% zone at the moment, which must be troubling for the yes group.

The best thing Albo could do is pause the vote and aim to get bipartisan support for some sort of a compromise.

The easiest thing would be to legislate it first and see how it goes with a clear goal to implement the legislation after we see how it works. If it 'closes the gap', I'm all for it. Otherwise, it's just trash.

 

[JohnDe]

Not sure if this link will play, but it is a guy giving his opinion about governments implementing policies that reduce our freedoms. He’s not wrong but he’s not right either.

Democracy allows the majority to have a say and to improve. Sometimes that is not always the case, or there is poor explanation, experience or execution of ideas and changes.

We’re on a slippery slope, and France and the USA is a good example of what can happen with poor quality government.

Log into Facebook

Log into Facebook to start sharing and connecting with your friends, family, and people you know.

lm.facebook.com

 

[rcw1]

Good evening
Hansard - House of Representatives 22/06/23
MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE - Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice

For discussion within the House of Representatives: This Government's inability to explain what the Voice is and how it would work. Moved by: Leader of the Opposition.

Hansard Display

Hansard Display

www.aph.gov.au

Comments from:

• Mr DUTTON (Dickson—Leader of the Opposition);
• Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Prime Minister);
• Mr PASIN (Barker);
• Mr DREYFUS (Isaacs—Attorney-General and Cabinet Secretary);
• Mr WOLAHAN (Menzies);
• Ms BURNEY (Barton—Minister for Indigenous Australians);
• Ms WARE (Hughes);
• Mr BURKE (Watson—Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, Minister for the Arts and Leader of the House);
• Mr PEARCE (Braddon); and
• Mr BANDT (Melbourne—Leader of the Australian Greens)

Balanced? You judge.
Have a very nice week.

Kind regards
rcw1

 

[sptrawler]

Not sure if this link will play, but it is a guy giving his opinion about governments implementing policies that reduce our freedoms. He’s not wrong but he’s not right either.

Democracy allows the majority to have a say and to improve. Sometimes that is not always the case, or there is poor explanation, experience or execution of ideas and changes.

We’re on a slippery slope, and France and the USA is a good example of what can happen with poor quality government.

Log into Facebook

Log into Facebook to start sharing and connecting with your friends, family, and people you know.

lm.facebook.com

I didn't watch the link, but the premise IMO is correct, the huge problem in our society at the moment, is that it's inherent culture of being apologetic is being exploited.
Which is fine until it isn't, then all hell breaks lose, I think those boundaries are being stretched to breaking point ATM, time will tell.

I don't think that manifests itself as it does in places like France, because we aren't the same , but it does manifest itself in Labor going WTFH, as happened in 2019, sadly I think way too many balls in the air and not many going to land well.

Time will tell and I am disappointed because I think Albo has his heart in the right spot, but as so many before him they take too big a bite and as happened to Abbott, the heart being in the right spot doesn't work if it doesn't resonate.

I hope i'm wrong, but the aggressive left, is alienating the middle and it will all end up with this is too hard, we're done.

This actually if potato head plays his cards right and even though they have the baggage from the banking royal commission, the robodebt, the Christian Porter fiasco, could rise from the dead.

Now that would be a huge own goal and I hope to hell it doesn't happen, but if it does, the one thing I will be happy about it will put the Republic issue back years also.
Because it will show that the manipulation of our constitution, is still a very active issue with the voting public, time will tell but I hope everyone takes a huge breath.

 

[Knobby22]

I didn't watch the link, but the premise IMO is correct, the huge problem in our society at the moment, is that it's inherent culture of being apologetic is being exploited.
Which is fine until it isn't, then all hell breaks lose, I think those boundaries are being stretched to breaking point ATM, time will tell.

I don't think that manifests itself as it does in places like France, because we aren't the same , but it does manifest itself in Labor going WTFH, as happened in 2019, sadly I think way too many balls in the air and not many going to land well.

Time will tell and I am disappointed because I think Albo has his heart in the right spot, but as so many before him they take too big a bite and as happened to Abbott, the heart being in the right spot doesn't work if it doesn't resonate.

I hope i'm wrong, but the aggressive left, is alienating the middle and it will all end up with this is too hard, we're done.

This actually if potato head plays his cards right and even though they have the baggage from the banking royal commission, the robodebt, the Christian Porter fiasco, could rise from the dead.

Now that would be a huge own goal and I hope to hell it doesn't happen, but if it does, the one thing I will be happy about it will put the Republic issue back years also.
Because it will show that the manipulation of our constitution, is still a very active issue with the voting public, time will tell but I hope everyone takes a huge breath.

I think Albo, if he loses, which is likely, will be able to say I tried and can then put something in legislation.

Dutton will say he is a winner but he will not want the swinging voters to remember it too much when voting at the next election.

He will probably try to ameliorate this by having a legislative voice as one of his policies.

In the end it will happen which ever way the vote goes.

 

[Sean K]

I think Albo, if he loses, which is likely, will be able to say I tried and can then put something in legislation.

There's got to be some sort of strategic plan for the ALP when they lose this. They've gone all in on pocket 2s. And, I don't think they can count cards.

 

[sptrawler]

I think Albo, if he loses, which is likely, will be able to say I tried and can then put something in legislation.

Dutton will say he is a winner but he will not want the swinging voters to remember it too much when voting at the next election. He will probably try to ameliorate rate by having a legislative voice as one of his policies.

In the end it will happen which ever way it goes.

This isn't the only issue, if it was that would be fine, but the housing, electricity and immigration issues are far more critical.

The 'voice' is far more emotional and the general public will be wondering WTF, it doesn't effect me, why don't they put my problems into the constitution.
This is a real problem when you are encouraging a victim mentality, you have to decide who you are going to decide qualifies and then work out who is scamming.

 

[StockyGuy]

There's got to be some sort of strategic plan for the ALP when they lose this. They've gone all in on pocket 2s. And, I don't think they can count cards.

IF they lose the Voice, it all depends how they play it. If they fail it gives the current ALP the moral high ground on a lot of issues if they just let it rest from then on. They can say they simply asked a question of the public and did not force anything on them.

It also makes them fairly immune to criticism for ATSI problems because they tried - the nasty unwashed masses said no, not them. If they feel ideologically compelled to then push through a legislated ATSIC 2.0 it might be prudent to try to achieve re-election first.

 

[TimeISmoney]

This isn't the only issue, if it was that would be fine, but the housing, electricity and immigration issues are far more critical.

The 'voice' is far more emotional and the general public will be wondering WTF, it doesn't effect me, why don't they put my problems into the constitution.
This is a real problem when you are encouraging a victim mentality, you have to decide who you are going to decide qualifies and then work out who is scamming.

Warren Mundine said never to be the victim, his old folks taught him that.

“I have never seen anyone pulled out of poverty by charity,” Mr Mundine said. “It helps you survive, that’s all, but then from that you have to pull yourself out.”

Education, education, and education, without that you are screwed no matter what's the colour of your skinsuit.

 

[Smurf1976]

How does that explain the greater percentage of ATSI children that live in poverty?
While definitions vary, on average over 40% of indigenous families live below the poverty line, compared with less about 15% of non-indigenous families. From that we can estimate that about half of all indigenous children live in families with incomes below the poverty line, compared with about 20 per cent of non-indigenous children.

No doubt there'd be other groups with similarly high percentages living in poverty.

Defining it based on race is purely arbitrary and fails to get to the root cause of the problem. We could pick some other arbitrary grouping and get an even worse result but that also doesn't help.

The real issue is why is any family living in poverty?

Is it because of their ancestry?

Or is it because of unemployment or some abnormal drain on finances (eg addiction)?

My contention is it's very much the latter. People aren't living in poverty due to their skin colour but rather, it's because they lack a sufficient income and/or the ability to effectively manage money. Most common cause = un or underemployment and/or some sort of addiction.

My argument is that all children in such circumstances should be assisted regardless of their race or other circumstances. They are the future and it's to everyone's benefit they gain a proper education and the ability to achieve success as adults.

There's no reason to only help ATSI, we ought be doing the lot.

 

[Smurf1976]

The only people affected are indigenous, and they stand to benefit if Parliament accepts and acts their advice. How there can be harm in a change that could be beneficial to a sector who suffer more disadvantage than average for all citizens defies common sense.

In an attempt to be completely neutral, I'll ask you to put yourself in the shoes of Joe Average Citizen looking at this from the outside.

As a concept they think the living conditions of many Aboriginal people are totally unacceptable and need fixing ASAP. There's no objection to the idea that improvement is needed.

On the other hand they've been lied to so many times by politicians that quite simply they're not looking at the intent of the Voice but rather, they're looking for loopholes or other means by which it can be used against them.

That's the sad reality of Australian society in 2023 and it's one that ought concern everyone. A substantial portion of society has simply lost trust in government, they don't trust government to not sell them out, and we now have resistance not just to the Voice but to any change at all.

If it were up to me, if I were the PM, then I'd legislate the Voice but I'd do it in the context of a very major push that initially focuses on eliminating disadvantage for all Australian children, regardless of their ancestry, and to do so in a very timely manner.

No grand speeches about children living in poverty but rather, practical solutions. A focus on all having access to proper primary, secondary and tertiary education and government being willing to back them where the family can't or won't.

A "break the cycle" approach in short. One that's resourced and with clear requirements for rapid progress to be achieved.

 

[Smurf1976]

Smurf i am no expert, you cannot solve the kids problem without addressing the family disfunction that starts it all amongst relationship disfunction domestic violence and all round trauma.

Bandyup detention centre has a 80 to 90 reoffending rate for Aboriginal kids locking them up doesn’t work

Agreed.

My view is be guided by experts but don't be afraid to do what's necessary.

Focus on the kids and getting them out of that cycle. Giving them hope and optimism, giving them a proper education, enabling them to succeed in society.

Doing it by force won't work but what I have in mind is something along the lines of leadership from respected persons within the Aboriginal community and with government as the enabler to make it happen.

Ideally fix the family but I'm in no denial that in many cases that isn't going to be possible and that being so, that leadership from Elders is aimed at encouraging those kids to walk away from that situation with government being the enabler physically and financially.

It's brutal but if the kids end up with a proper education and a real future then that beats them ending up like their parents, it breaks the cycle.

It has to be something they want to do though, they have to be convinced it's the right thing. There's a need for strong, positive role models there. Seeing that they too can have a great future, a great life, and here's how they can get that and with government as the enabler to make it happen.

Bearing in mind I'm not saying just do it for ATSI children, I'm saying do it for anyone in bad circumstances. If dud parents are hampering the next generation then as a society we're best to fix that ASAP.

Difference with the Voice is I'm focusing on outcomes not process and it's for all who need it no matter what their ancestry. Plus almost certainly my envisaged timeframes are drastically shorter.

 

[qldfrog]

In an attempt to be completely neutral, I'll ask you to put yourself in the shoes of Joe Average Citizen looking at this from the outside.

As a concept they think the living conditions of many Aboriginal people are totally unacceptable and need fixing ASAP. There's no objection to the idea that improvement is needed.

On the other hand they've been lied to so many times by politicians that quite simply they're not looking at the intent of the Voice but rather, they're looking for loopholes or other means by which it can be used against them.

That's the sad reality of Australian society in 2023 and it's one that ought concern everyone. A substantial portion of society has simply lost trust in government, they don't trust government to not sell them out, and we now have resistance not just to the Voice but to any change at all.

If it were up to me, if I were the PM, then I'd legislate the Voice but I'd do it in the context of a very major push that initially focuses on eliminating disadvantage for all Australian children, regardless of their ancestry, and to do so in a very timely manner.

No grand speeches about children living in poverty but rather, practical solutions. A focus on all having access to proper primary, secondary and tertiary education and government being willing to back them where the family can't or won't.

A "break the cycle" approach in short. One that's resourced and with clear requirements for rapid progress to be achieved.

And definitely not based on a newly built racial apartheid regime .

 

[JohnDe]

The first speech takes the road of the possible radical outcomes that may happen if the Referendum is successful. I think he's a little over the top and taking things to the extreme.

However, with the Yes side calling the No side "liars, clueless, racist...." they have taken the radical route to get their voice in any way possible.

The second orator gives an interesting example.

Institute of Public Affairs’ research has shown that the proposed Indigenous-only Voice to Parliament is risky, uncertain and divisive, with little detail around its consequences.​

There is a large and growing body of domestic and international evidence which demonstrates that the Voice will be more powerful and have a far greater impact on the way Australia is governed the proponents claim.​

​

On 14 June 2023, the IPA held a public forum to discuss the Voice to Parliament proposal. Attendees heard from IPA Director of Legal Rights Program John Storey, IPA Deputy Executive Director Daniel Wild and Nyunggai Warren Mundine AO.​

 

[TimeISmoney]

Good evening
Hansard - House of Representatives 22/06/23
MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE - Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice

For discussion within the House of Representatives: This Government's inability to explain what the Voice is and how it would work. Moved by: Leader of the Opposition.

Hansard Display

Hansard Display

www.aph.gov.au

Comments from:

• Mr DUTTON (Dickson—Leader of the Opposition);
• Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Prime Minister);
• Mr PASIN (Barker);
• Mr DREYFUS (Isaacs—Attorney-General and Cabinet Secretary);
• Mr WOLAHAN (Menzies);
• Ms BURNEY (Barton—Minister for Indigenous Australians);
• Ms WARE (Hughes);
• Mr BURKE (Watson—Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, Minister for the Arts and Leader of the House);
• Mr PEARCE (Braddon); and
• Mr BANDT (Melbourne—Leader of the Australian Greens)

Balanced? You judge.
Have a very nice week.

Kind regards
rcw1

That was interesting, not one cabinet member could give a straight answer on the Voice, Albo gives in depth answers with many untruths. There are already high court judges that have come forwards in the media and are in disagreement with each other, that it could lead to litigation. Also, many of these statements of the voice only relating to indigenous matters only are false, what happens when an indigenous person wants to claim a native land title over private land and even on public land that non idiginous have used for years? They could use their arbitration to prolong projects by putting off meetings and costing the reissue of permits that could lead to the 100s of thousands in the cost of renewing building permits and possibly millions in some cases. The outcome of this will affect every Australian, not just one group.