The Voice

[rederob]

Who is going to pay for the advisory panel?

It's not a panel and if you looked at the last Budget you would see its costs are already built in.
That said, why would advise that led to improved outcomes for indigenous people be a "cost"? Surely longer term savings come from the potential declines in treatment costs and incarceration, just to mention a few areas of probable benefit.

It won't be immune to corruption.

It will be a transparent body so it will be very difficult to hide corrupt behaviour, unlike the dozens of bureaucrats and politicians who occupy the sealed section of the Robodebt Royal Commission becauses they colluded to hide unlawfulness from us.

Albanese told the public we would not be voting for recognition, we're voting on whether or not we want "the voice".

Really!

The same voice that has awarded native title claims,

That's called a LIE.
The legal concept of terra nullius is obviously beyond you.

the same voice that's changed the names of islands back to indigenous names,

That's also called a LIE.
It's a bit like saying Peking was never called Beijing by Chinese people.

the same voice that has blocked the public from using indigenous sacred land, yet you all say that you don't have a voice.

Why is it that so many "no" voters resort to bald-faced lies?

 

[SirRumpole]

If you think my portrayal of you as racist is untrue then why would a powerless body of indigenous people who can advise on the betterment of indigenous people they represent be something you oppose?

So all the indigenous people that oppose the voice are also racists?

If you think insults are a substitute for argument then you have lost the plot.

 

[SirRumpole]

The Voice is the embodiment of recognition.

ATSI people are already recognised through land rights and freeholdings.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"
According to the National Indigenous Australians Agency, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples’ rights and interests in land are formally recognised over around 50 per cent of Australia’s land mass. Over the last fifty years, ownership and control of about 20 per cent of Australia has been returned to indigenous people1.

The Australian government reports state that Indigenous communities hold the freehold title to 17% of the country, mainly in the Northern Territory and South Australia2."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's not bad for 3% of the population.

If they can't manage those assets to the benefit of their population then maybe they should give it back.

 

[Sean K]

Your racism is so obvious it's now comical.

The go-to argument of the Left. If you disagree with a race based body in the constitution, it's racism.

 

[JohnDe]

In New Zealand, the emergence of Maori retribalization in the 1980s within the wider context of the Maori cultural revival, biculturalism, and the Treaty of Waitangi historical grievance settlements has produced policies and practices in the health sector that classify the Maori section of the population as a discrete ethnic or racial category (McCreanor and Nairn, 2002, U272). This article argues that the ethnic categorization process can be understood as a political construct in Treaty politics. Those politics are based on a post-1987 interpretation of the Treaty as an ongoing political “partnership” between the incorporated tribes and the government (referred to in the Treaty political discourse as the “Crown”) (Te Puni Kokiri Ministry of Maori Development, 2001). According to the Ministry’s interpretation, Maori low health status (Ministry of Health, 2013) is caused by an unequal power relationship between Maori and non-Maori that has its origins in the British colonization of New Zealand dating to the 1840 Treaty (Bishop and Berryman, 2006). The solution to the colonially imposed inequality and the resulting disadvantage is believed to be found in varying degrees of tribal self-determination. This political solution includes the provision of separate health care policies and practices by tribal and other Maori groups, the most recent of which is the policy, a major government health and social initiative resulting from the Maori Party’s 2008–11 coalition agreement with the governing National Party.

Ethnic Classification in the New Zealand Health Care System - PMC

The ethnic or “racial” classification of Maori and non-Maori is a pivotal feature of New Zealand’s health system and affects government policy and professional practice within the context of Treaty of Waitangi “partnership” politics. Although ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Whānau Ora​

Add languages

• Article
• Talk
• Read
• Edit
• View history

Tools





From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Whānau Ora (Māori for "healthy families") is a major contemporary indigenous health initiative in New Zealand, driven by Māori cultural values. Its core goal is to empower communities and extended families (whānau) to support families within the community context rather than individuals within an institutional context.

History and objectives[edit]​

Whānau Ora evolved out of the coalition between the National and Māori parties after the 2008 general election[1][2] and became a cornerstone of the coalition agreement between them after the 2011 general election.[3][4] Te Puni Kōkiri (the Ministry for Māori Development) stated in 2011 that:
Whānau Ora is an inclusive approach to providing services and opportunities to whānau across New Zealand. It empowers whānau as a whole, rather than focusing separately on individual whānau members and their problems.[5]
Prior to the health initiative, Whānau Ora was the name of the Māori health awards.[6]

Criticism[edit]​

The programme has been criticised for having hard to define and impossible to measure specific outputs;[7][8][9] as well as a disproportionate amount of funding being spent in Turia's electorate.[10] MP Winston Peters has been a vocal opponent of the program.[10][11] The longest-established national Māori health organisation, the Māori Women's Welfare League choose not to participate in Whānau Ora, but some regional leaders are involved. The League operates a parenting skills course called Whanau Toko i te Ora, which is unrelated to Whānau Ora.[12]

Ministerial oversight[edit]​

Between April 2010 and September 2014, Māori Party co-leader Tariana Turia served as Minister for Whānau Ora.[13][14][15] Between September 2014 and October 2017, the portfolio for Whānau Ora was occupied by Māori Party co-leader Te Ururoa Flavell.[16] Following the 2017 election, the Labour MP Peeni Henare assumed the position of Minister for Whānau Ora.[17]

Whānau Ora - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The above indicates that NZ does have race based policies on health which I'm sure The Voice would like to copy at a cost to the Australian taxpayer.

On top of their health system issues, you can now add education -

Education is another policy area creating many negative headlines. Regular school attendance is shockingly low across the board, especially in New Zealand’s poorest communities. In Term 1 of 2023, over 40 per cent of students missed more than 10 per cent of their classes. Worryingly, 17 per cent of students missed at least 20 per cent of their school time.​

​

Equally worrying were the results of a recent pilot of a new assessment of numeracy and literacy for senior secondary students. Only a third of students passed the writing standard, slightly more than half the numeracy standard, and two thirds the reading standard.​

​

These standard were set to reflect a basic adult level of proficiency and are supposed to become a co-requisite for NCEA, New Zealand’s secondary school qualification.​

 

[macca]

ATSI people are already recognised through land rights and freeholdings.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"
According to the National Indigenous Australians Agency, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples’ rights and interests in land are formally recognised over around 50 per cent of Australia’s land mass. Over the last fifty years, ownership and control of about 20 per cent of Australia has been returned to indigenous people1.

The Australian government reports state that Indigenous communities hold the freehold title to 17% of the country, mainly in the Northern Territory and South Australia2."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's not bad for 3% of the population.

If they can't manage those assets to the benefit of their population then maybe they should give it back.

In my area there are actually only a few thousand people claiming Aboriginal heritage, of them perhaps 80% are in a mixed race situation.

These people are living a suburban life much the same as everyone else, whatever their racial background is or the colour of their skin.

There are no discriminatory practises against them that I am aware of or have seen in the past 20 years, I am aware of pro discrimination toward Aboriginal people by Education facilities, Doctors, Govt Depts, Local Council and any charities.

The local Aboriginal land council controls access to the most popular National Park in the area, it has the right to be rangers there, they are in the process of building a camping area at the entry point which they will own and manage.

They also own other land worth at least $30 million in the area.

It does seem hard to think of these people as disadvantaged when I see people sleeping rough or in camper vans in council carparks.

 

[TimeISmoney]

ATSI people are already recognised through land rights and freeholdings.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"
According to the National Indigenous Australians Agency, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples’ rights and interests in land are formally recognised over around 50 per cent of Australia’s land mass. Over the last fifty years, ownership and control of about 20 per cent of Australia has been returned to indigenous people1.

The Australian government reports state that Indigenous communities hold the freehold title to 17% of the country, mainly in the Northern Territory and South Australia2."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's not bad for 3% of the population.

If they can't manage those assets to the benefit of their population then maybe they should give it back.

The last I heard from Warren Mundine is they already own 50% of NT and 40% of the rest of Australia and there are years of backlogs of native title claims that will in the end amount to 80% of Australia, that's not bad considering they'll never pay a cent of land rates or land tax and all of this owned by 3% of the nation.

 

[JohnDe]

The last I heard from Warren Mundine is they already own 50% of NT and 40% of the rest of Australia and there are years of backlogs of native title claims that will in the end amount to 80% of Australia, that's not bad considering they'll never pay a cent of land rates or land tax and all of this owned by 3% of the nation.

Sir Rumple is correct. I read an article on the issue a few weeks ago and it confirmed 55%.

 

[TimeISmoney]

It's not a panel and if you looked at the last Budget you would see its costs are already built in.
That said, why would advise that led to improved outcomes for indigenous people be a "cost"? Surely longer term savings come from the potential declines in treatment costs and incarceration, just to mention a few areas of probable benefit.

The referendum is going to cost about $364 million and the cost keeps on rising, that's $364 mil less that the Indigenous will ever see. You can't educate people that refused to be educated because they hold racial hatred against the education system. No amount of help or money will fix this and it's back to the same circle again.

It will be a transparent body so it will be very difficult to hide corrupt behaviour, unlike the dozens of bureaucrats and politicians who occupy the sealed section of the Robodebt Royal Commission becauses they colluded to hide unlawfulness from us.

That's my point, you already have indigenous politicians in the cabinet to listen to people on indigenous matters, no need for another body or level of government.

Really!

This is why the rest of Australia is suspect because Albo doesn't even know what it is.

That's called a LIE.
The legal concept of terra nullius is obviously beyond you.

Who owns native title land then?

That's also called a LIE.
It's a bit like saying Peking was never called Beijing by Chinese people.

Why is it that so many "no" voters resort to bald-faced lies?

Maybe it's the lie that's being sold to the rest of Australia by labor.


Fraser island.

Great keppel isalnd

Mt Warning.

 

[TimeISmoney]

Sir Rumple is correct. I read an article on the issue a few weeks ago and it confirmed 55%.

This is the board that does native land titles, it doesn't matter of the exact figure anyway other than eventually they'll own 80% of the land mass, 3% of Aussies will own this large chunk of land, how greedy, and their spiritual heritage claims that they don't own land, the land own them? On top of this, they received money for extinguished land titles.

" With 40% of Australian land mass currently under a successful native title claim, you can see how estimates of up to 80% of Australia being claimed under native title by 2050 are very possible. There are currently 177 native title claims awaiting determination right now."

 

[rederob]

The go-to argument of the Left. If you disagree with a race based body in the constitution, it's racism.

Actually there is nothing wrong with any race based body where its purpose is representation, just as the AMA can represent doctors.
So you appear to be confused about what racism is.

 

[rederob]

So all the indigenous people that oppose the voice are also racists?

If you think insults are a substitute for argument then you have lost the plot.

Is there a reason you cannot explain what I asked?
I don't do bait and switch.

 

[rederob]

That's not bad for 3% of the population.

Given it was always their land to begin with, I doubt you are on a winner.

 

[rederob]

The referendum is going to cost about $364 million

False. It might cost around $90M given the 1999 referendum cost $68M.

You can't educate people that refused to be educated because they hold racial hatred against the education system. No amount of help or money will fix this and it's back to the same circle again.

How come there are ATSI people that are going to university? You don't have a valid point.

That's my point, you already have indigenous politicians in the cabinet to listen to people on indigenous matters, no need for another body or level of government.

Then why was there bipartisan support for the proposal until Dutton reneged?

Who owns native title land then?

What is the price of eggs?
Do you know what it means to be relevant?

 

[TimeISmoney]

False. It might cost around $90M given the 1999 referendum cost $68M.

Oh, of course, whatever works for your narrative.

Budget papers reveal the $364.6 million cost of delivering the Voice referendum​

How come there are ATSI people that are going to university? You don't have a valid point.

Then why was there bipartisan support for the proposal until Dutton reneged?

The indigenous that go to uni are thin and few and if they're going to uni they obviously haven't experienced a gap like most other Aussies, but stop acting silly Rob the majority of the incarcerated indigenous don't read or write fluent English, their life will be a circle of crime because of their limited job prospects. I grew up in a part of Qld that was the equivalent of Redfern back in the day, then I spent 10 years of my life traveling and working in north and central Australia, places like Leanora in WA, Jabaru in Kakadu national park, Daily River, Brocks Creek, Dimbulah out from Marreeba, Atherton tablelands, Mount Carbine, Mt Isa just to name a few. I've seen more than enough of what goes on in these communities. Higher Education generally just can't happen overnight when it's refused by many and or not classed as important.

What is the price of eggs?
Do you know what it means to be relevant?

If you think Australian indigenous don't own the land with native title, I sure as hell will have it.

 

[orr]

False. It might cost around $90M given the 1999 referendum cost $68M.

How come there are ATSI people that are going to university? You don't have a valid point.

Then why was there bipartisan support for the proposal until Dutton reneged?

What is the price of eggs?
Do you know what it means to be relevant?

One of those quotes you picked up on Red, the; 'you carn't educate people ....'
When I read that as I'm going down the thread it struck me as one of the most ill thought out remarks that someone would ever be likely to read. There was no nuance; I mean sure teaching gets difficult when the IQ gets down to the shoe size or trying getting over early childhood indoctrination. But none.... just a carte' blanche ....

I wonder if there will ever be a philosopher who asks the question.... 'was there time before there was money?'
If ever? one might want to question their 'education'.

 

[IFocus]

Otherwise, good answers congrats, @IFocus liked them.

Correct I do like Robs comments as they are so well informed, so well constructed are constructive and bring intellect to the table

 

[sptrawler]

Correct I do like Robs comments as they are so well informed, so well constructed are constructive and bring intellect to the table

Agreed, without Rob it would be a very boring subject and the thread would have lost steam long ago.

 

[JohnDe]

Very interesting answers from the Australian people 6 years ago /

Changing the Constitution to help stop racial discrimination | Referendum Council

www.referendumcouncil.org.au

Changing the Constitution to help stop racial discrimination​

Racial discrimination is when a person or a group of people is singled out and treated differently because of how they look or because of their culture. All of the states and territories have laws and policies to stop racial discrimination.

Changing the Constitution to help stop racial discrimination video transcript
Racial discrimination is when a person or a group of people is singled out and treated differently because of how they look or because of their culture. All of the states and territories have laws and policies to stop racial discrimination. Also, a national law called the Racial Discrimination Act makes it against the law to discriminate against someone because of their race, colour or where they come from. But the Constitution does not stop the Australian Parliament from making laws that discriminate against Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. One idea is to put a new section in the Constitution to stop the Australian Parliament from discriminating against people of any race or culture. Another idea is to include words about discrimination in a new power for the Australian Parliament to make laws about Indigenous peoples. Either way, the goal would be to make sure that the Australian Parliament’s laws do not discriminate against Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.
Question 1:
Do you think that a guarantee against racial discrimination should go into the Constitution?
Question 2:
Do you have any ideas about what words to use for that guarantee, or where in the Constitution to put it?
Question 3:
Should the guarantee protect all Australians against racial discrimination, or only Indigenous Australians?
Question 4:
If there is not enough support for a guarantee in the Constitution, what other things can we do to stop racial discrimination in national laws?

Read comments​

Peter Carblis
Wed, 05/04/2017 - 15:16
I believe in racial equality. Race is a very different thing to culture. Race is closely related to the physical/biological/genetic aspect of our being: our phenotype to speak genetically. Culture is learned no matter how historical it must be. It is a serious and invalid mixing of categories to include these in the definition of racism. It destroys the validity of the term. I would support an anti-racism clause providing race is properly defined.
Mardeep Singal
Sun, 02/04/2017 - 22:37
Question 1: Racial discrimination is actual discrimination, already outlawed under Australian law, and not this pathetic "insult or offend" idiocy you're attempting to push.Question 2: Objective words that aren't vague or subjective, which do not lead to allowing frivolous lawsuits that destroy lives and cost thousands like you're currently pushing for.Question 3: Any laws should guarantee protection to ALL Australians. Not this ridiculously absurd and racist "you can't be racist against white people" ignorant bigotry like you push.Question 4: Stop opposing changes to make the laws better for protection against racism, such as your opposition to changing 18C.
robert robinson
Sat, 01/04/2017 - 22:58
Does this mean that aboriginal and torres strait people will lose their extra entitlements because they are singled out because of their race or looks.
Grant
Fri, 31/03/2017 - 19:15
1. and 2. There should not be a clause in the constitution against racial discrimination unless the wording is broad enough to ensure it encompasses all races. Note that if there is this clause it will invalidate all affirmative action as this will become unconstitutional.3. There should no differentiation between indigenous and other Australians in the constitution as this then creates first and second class citizens. Instead the constitution must be very clear that all races are equal. Anything discriminatory in the constitution must be avoided at all costs.4. Remove 18C to allow for robust discussion of ideas. Suppression only makes bad ideas fester instead of bringing them into the open
Ursula
Fri, 07/04/2017 - 08:35
I fully agree with your comments, except for #4; there has to be a line drawn between "normal" behaviour and verbal assault.
Maurice McGahey
Fri, 31/03/2017 - 11:58
Question 1: Do you think that a guarantee against racial discrimination should go into the Constitution?No. I think that a guarantee against discrimination should be in the Constitution.Question 2: Do you have any ideas about what words to use for that guarantee, or where in the Constitution to put it?The words in the Constitution are broad. It is the Base on which Federal and State/Territory laws are built. And that is why I only want a guarantee against discrimination. There is no need at Constitution Level to detail the discrimination.Question 3: Should the guarantee protect all Australians against racial discrimination, or only Indigenous Australians?Again, WHY would you separate a group out for discrimination by writing discriminatory laws? The guarantee should be against discrimination.Question 4: If there is not enough support for a guarantee in the Constitution, what other things can we do to stop racial discrimination in national laws?There needs to be Federal Legislation making it illegal to discriminate. This is like National Defence. It is too important to leave to State and Territory Level. State and Territories may increase the protections if they wish, but given that the Constitution stands above all other laws, and State and Territory Laws only stand where they are not in conflict with Federal Law it would seem duplication of task.
Maurice McGahey
Fri, 31/03/2017 - 11:44
If the Australian Constitution is to be amended it needs to be amended to include a Clause of Human Rights. Just as neo-liberalist economic policy is an "experiment" that has had its time, been disproven as effective and must be abandoned, so is "Affirmative Action". Affirmative Action has done nothing but increase the void between those that have opportunities and those that don't. Much more sensible is the "Normalization" of peoples behaviour towards each other .... WHOEVER the "each other" is!A "Bill of Rights" or Clause guaranteeing equal opportunity to work, housing, a living income and legal aid would be a step in the right direction.We must make it "abnormal" to treat people differently. We can't do that by increasing the difference in which we treat some special people.
David Harris
Thu, 30/03/2017 - 22:45
Why on earth would we not also outlaw ddiscrimination on the basis of gender ? Religious institutions have discriminated against women for 2000 years, and we should use changes to our constitution to put an end to that discrimination.
Judy Lyon
Thu, 30/03/2017 - 16:53
What people seem to forget, is there is only one race in this world, the HUMAN race,In that race comes, different colours, genders, sexual orientations, religions, ages, political views, and more differences than can be stated here.There will NEVER be an end to discrimination, simply because there is NO pleasing everyone.We are humans, since our creation we have never gotton along, so why do you think things will change now?There will always be someone who feels sorry for themselves over some injustice, be it real or imagined, that will refuse to see it for what it is and make it about their colour, religion, age, gender or any other excuse or reason they can come up with.Discrimination will only end when we humans are ALL capable of logical and reasonable thinking, until then, life shall go on as it is now.
Rhyll McMaster
Thu, 30/03/2017 - 12:39
Yes, I do support changing the constitution to prevent racial discrimination. S.51(xxvi) of the constitution discriminates against Aboriginal people, but it's difficult to remove this clause because it might mean that native title protections will be lost. Native title rights have been hard fought for, and they should be protected because Aboriginal people are a discriminated against minority who have been dispossessed and cruelly treated, and native title rights go some way towards reparations for harms and injustices.This new clause must apply to all people. It's important to make the change within the constitution, because although states have racial discrimination powers, and there is also the federal Racial Discrimination Act, both these can be overridden by the constitutional S.51(xxvi).Howard used S.51(xxvi) to rush through the NT Intervention by suspending the federal Racial Discrimination Act. That's why there will be no real anti-discrimination protection until it is written into the constitution.Australia is the only western democracy that does not have a bill of rights that affords these protections. It is also the only western democracy that has a racially discriminatory clause in its constitution.
Timothy
Tue, 28/03/2017 - 16:16
Yes, I think that a guarantee against racial discrimination should go into the Constitution, and that this guarantee should protect all Australians against racial discrimination, not only Indigenous Australians.
Rosie Lee
Sun, 26/03/2017 - 09:04
We need a Bill of Rights. This would not be so divisive and not impact on Sovereignty or a Treaty as it would apply equally to all people
Rosie Lee
Sun, 26/03/2017 - 09:00
We should be talking about a Bill of Rights. Freedom of speech is not even guaranteed in our Constitution which was purely to amalgamate the States. A Bill of Rights would apply to ALL equally and not be such s divisive issue for people who prefer Sovereignty or a Treaty rather than being in the constitution
Colin Jones
Sat, 25/03/2017 - 00:55
The constitution is not the place for any guarantee against racial discrimination. That is the job of the parliament if it so wishes. The constitution is simply the rule book for how the government works. It does not tell elected representatives what to believe. Racial discrimination is not stopped by laws. It can only be reduced by a cooperative community adding as much as possible to integrating and assimilating the different races. Enforcement should be by community pressure, not the law.
Rob Whiter
Fri, 24/03/2017 - 13:50
I do not think our Consitution should be employed to deal with subjective matters such as this. As an instrument dealing with our basic rights as citizens anything that cannot be defined objectively, and applied equally to all has no place in our constitution. Racism is a relative term and as such it is a highly subjective matter.
Maureen Soaris
Thu, 23/03/2017 - 20:50
I do not believe it should be in the Constitution as no matter how carefully you word it, it can be open to misinterpretation and misused.
J. Day
Thu, 23/03/2017 - 18:46
There is never a 100% guarrantee. Changing date of Australia Day will only pander to a minority, some of whom will politicize as 'invasion day'. Of course Aborigines and TSI 's must be respected, but there were some 500 clans/sects/tribes with no absolute boundaries and with differing views and outlooks, and there will always be some that are never satisfied. Any proposed change to the Constitution must be agreeable to all, not just the noisy few.
Trish O'Reilly…
Thu, 23/03/2017 - 16:08
Change the Constitution to help stop racial discrimination
Martin
Thu, 23/03/2017 - 10:30
Leave the constitution alone.It doesn't need changing
David Truman
Thu, 23/03/2017 - 10:16
We do N O T need a blasted nanny state thought police telling us how to talk and think.
Suzanne Rose
Thu, 23/03/2017 - 08:21
We are all one race, the human race. I think you will find the majority of Australians don't care what colour you are, it is more about how you treat us, and if you treat us with disrespect, of course you will get that back. Why can't everyone assimilate as it used to be?
Bob
Thu, 23/03/2017 - 06:04
Criticising a culture is not racism. Stop trying to sneak it in with "because of how they look".
Michael Braybrook
Wed, 22/03/2017 - 21:43
Put simply, no change. People have every right to express opinions even if they are abhorrent, racist, sexist etc.
Simon Walford
Wed, 22/03/2017 - 19:15
There's enough protection in existing laws without having to guarantee something in the constition that's already covered by normal law.
Maryanne Murray
Wed, 22/03/2017 - 19:03
There should be a guarantee against racial discrimination for all Australians in the Constitution. This should be a simple statement with reference to legislation which will embody that in law such as the Racial Discrimination Act.
Maurice McGahey
Wed, 22/03/2017 - 18:39
I would rather see a Bill of Rights covering ALL people in Australia. I believe this would also be more managable because even singling out any group of people for "affirmitive" discrimination discriminates against the rest.

 

[SirRumpole]

Agreed, without Rob it would be a very boring subject and the thread would have lost steam long ago.

Agreed, apart from the fact that he is wrong.