This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

The Voice

One of seemingly impossible to answer questions over "the Voice"(TM) , is exactly who gets to be classed as a first nations person, and thus be counted as one having a say in the voice.
We have all heard about bruce Pascoe and his claim to aboriginality, despite not having any known direct descendants.
He has claimed at various times. to be a part of the Bunurong Clan, but was rejected by the clan as having no geneaological links. He was also rejected by the Tasmanian Aboriginal folks as being aboriginal. Later, he claimed to be of the Wiradjuri people, but this claim was also rejected by local custodians. His claim to be also part of the Yuin clan still remains unresolved, although the Aborignal Land Council based in Eden has rejected his membership. (see The mandarin for discussion on Pascoe's status).
Actress Tasma Walton, married to TV personality Rove Mcmanus, is another who claims first nations status. She felt that there was something missing in her life, and despite a DNA test showing she was 93% British, and 7% unknown. It is this 7% unknown that she believes shows her first nations ancestry, (see Now to love for her interview ).
The DNA did not back up her story about how her grandmother was taken from her clan and shipped across to WA as part of the stolen generation.
It probably helped her get the gig as a first nations person in the Mystery Road TV series, but its hardly definitive.
She had no cultural connection to first nations people prior to her epiphany, and the DNA results hardly backup her claims.
But who is going to deny her claims?
Mick
 
These are cultural imperatives. The question is who are responsible for these?

There's a cultual component; I'd have to see as to how you define imperative?
But more important:
What is being attempted to be addressed is the immediate personal costs which have direct impact on family and community, which expands out into a societal cost in lost attainment and all the mearsures to handle the corrosive disfunction.

So to cut away from all the human cost; at a hard nosed bean counting level it is an attempt at a better result. For me the tax payer.
 

Started a reply to this but was heading down the road of a thesis ?

Long reply short Elders unless the males have done law (initiated) Elders have little sway if there is money involved everyone is an Elder then depending feuding between mobs clan’s family’s they will back the mob anyway.

You have to deal with the families 1st even if to reduce foetal Alcohol syndrome and DV to reduce kids trauma plus a whole lot of other stuff.

Then there is pride go to a NW town and watch a group of Aboriginals shopping you have never seen people as uncomfortable then watch a group of Kiwis night and day
 

Answer, so what, the intentions are clear they will have nothing to do with the Voice unless the Coalition change it to benefit their millionaire friends… like the banks eh
 
A "break the cycle" approach in short. One that's resourced and with clear requirements for rapid progress to be achieved.

There are areas near SP and myself that I would love to see you have a go at they have broken plenty of people trying ?
 

30-minute mark: Warren Mundine's great grandfather holding his son, which is Warren's father. An interesting talk.




 

Government to challenge High Court ruling that Indigenous people cannot be considered aliens


The government is now appealing against the Federal Court's decision, arguing it was right to detain Mr Montgomery on the belief he was not Aboriginal.

Lawyers for the Commonwealth will tell the High Court that Mr Montgomery fails to meet a three-part test to prove his Aboriginality because he cannot demonstrate biological descent.

The test was established in the Mabo decision and includes that a person identifies as Indigenous, is recognised by other Indigenous people and has a biological descent.

While the government does not deny that Mr Montgomery identifies as Mununjali and is accepted by the group, it argues his adoption is not enough to claim Indigeneity.
 
I can see court cases coming on proving indigenous credentials similar to the kerfuffles about politicians proving their nationality.

How much will all that cost and who will pay ?
 
There are areas near SP and myself that I would love to see you have a go at they have broken plenty of people trying ?
I won't claim to have the answers on the "how" bit but I do know that it requires the individual to make the leap of their own accord, forcing won't work, and that it's unwise to entrench any particular approach without first proving that it works.

Why not take the "try before you buy" approach? Give the Voice concept a go by appointing it for a nominal period after which it's either scrapped or made permanent depending on its success or otherwise.

That approach is pretty widely used with everything from employment to marriages after all. Give it a go, if it works out then and only then go through the formality of making it permanent.
 
That would be a novel approach in Australia @Smurf1976 , as you well know, from our personal experiences working with Government.
The real problem is, those who get voted into office, quite often think it is due to their intelligence rather than their ability to talk endless $ht.

As is now being proven with our fabulously trashed education system, after years of being told all that was needed was more money to public schools, now we have a situation where the results are in. FAIL.

All this debacle is going to do, is lower the publics respect for politicians, which is already at an extremely low level. I think many expected things to change under Albo, it will be interesting to watch the fallout, hopefully it isn't too bad.
But a lot of this Voice, is being presented as a " we know best, you just vote as you are told and that is wearing thin IMO".
Australia with social media has changed, from the days of the politician knows best.
Probably the reason many pull the pin on the job, when they hit a high spot in their earnings, then they don't have to wear the consequences of their legacy.
 

So how did we get here?
Before we start note the whole thing has been unfortunately been politicised so it’s unlikely to fly.

The Voice was drawn up between Aboriginals, bureaucrats and conservatives (note serious conservatives were involved during the whole process) the whole point ending in a massive comprise for the sake of acceptance both to conservatives and the so called left.

It’s as much a political position as a practical one attempting to allow for recognition and being helpful to the ATSI peoples but note the very clear limitations (previous high court chief justices opinion).
That process happened under the Coalition government.

The Nationals and Peter Dutton have run falsehoods left right and centre due to leadership weakness (raw politics)

The reason for not going straight to parliament to legislate is because of the above, weak leadership will abolish it all at the drop of a hat its an easy target.


Whats interesting is how out of touch Australia truly is with our own history, culture and the plight of Aboriginals regardless of the raw facts.

Poor fella my country
 
What a load of BS. I think most people are well and truly in touch with the history of our country. Where there is difference is in agreeing with a path forward that is to the benefit of all, including the indigenous.

This is where Jacinta price et al have it absolutely nailed. There is little to be achieved by divisive racial politics, creating a two tiered society, and perpetuating distrust and hate.

This is what "the voice" is achieving, division and multiple levels of resentment because of the divisive rhetoric of the left and the yes campaign.

Consider your own writings here, bro; accusing everyone of racism who does not agree with your particular point of view.

Does that help to unite black fella and everybody else? Or does it serve to divide?

I can tell you that because of the arguments of such as you that the division between has never been wider.

Congratulations.
 
Last edited:
Whats interesting is how out of touch Australia truly is with our own history, culture and the plight of Aboriginals regardless of the raw facts.

Well, we can either wear black armbands and live in the past or realise that the world has changed and try and keep up with our competitors in other countries and tailor our education system to achieve that.
 
Well, we can either wear black armbands and live in the past or realise that the world has changed and try and keep up with our competitors in other countries and tailor our education system to achieve that.

I think its sad Rump you fail to grasp the basics I suspect its a choice as to the motivations only you really know.

Given the wide acceptance of falsehoods put up by the No case its shows a dark side of Australia's mainstream culture.

Poor fella my country sums it up in2023.
 
Before we start note the whole thing has been unfortunately been politicised so it’s unlikely to fly.
Agreed there. As with anything, once it's political that's the end of any chance for a good outcome. What comes next is somewhere between bad and worse.

Real success is achieved behind closed doors. The first the public hears about it, if they hear about it at all, is after the deal's done.

Whats interesting is how out of touch Australia truly is with our own history, culture and the plight of Aboriginals regardless of the raw facts.

A relevant question here is to what extent is the aim to assist Aboriginals to live successfully in what I'll generically describe as a Western lifestyle? And to what extent is the aim to undo the effects of historic actions and enable them to return to successfully living a traditional Aboriginal lifestyle?

To which I'll add that the notion of "closing the gap" does imply that we're talking about them living in the same manner as the rest of society although I strongly suspect not all want to actually do that.
 

I don't know I think the answer will be different for all here is a link from a Mundine for an insight to some thinking not saying its for all

 
It's a shame that others on the Yes campaign are not like Phil Saunders who is able to respect the view of others.


South Australian senator Kerrynne Liddle.. It irks this Arrernte woman, born and raised in Alice Springs, that these bodies are campaigning publicly for a Yes vote at the upcoming voice referendum, assuming their staff, shareholders and customers are all of the one mind. Do people want political messaging on their morning milk run or while dropping their kid at weekend sport, she wonders.
Would employees or members of these organisations feel comfortable raising doubts or revealing they were inclined to vote No? “It’s a way of silencing people and I don’t like it,” she declares.
Saunders, a Bunganditj, Gunditjmara and Narungga man tells me he doesn’t understand why anyone would actively say no – that the voice is a step in the right direction that should be seen as a unifying moment for Australia. It’s an opportunity, he says, a gift for generations to come.
It’s clear that Liddle and Saunders will agree to disagree as they hug goodbye.
Are these exchanges awkward, I ask Liddle later? “Not at all,” she responds. She has thought long and hard about her position and she’s not afraid to raise it. “People shouldn’t feel embarrassed or ashamed to say what they feel.”
Saunders agrees on this point. “She’s entitled to her opinion. She’s one person in the whole tapestry of this debate,” he says.
“I deeply respect Kerrynne as a woman and a person doing great things. She happens to be an Aboriginal senator, but that’s not the crux of it. I respect her for her views even though I don’t agree with them.”

 
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...