The Voice

[wayneL]

Agreed, apart from the fact that he is wrong.

Well, and probably helped to convert many front a yes to a no vote. He should be commended for that.

 

[IFocus]

Agreed, apart from the fact that he is wrong.

Haha stole my line there Rump ?

As I said earlier in the thread the No supporters comments will not age well along with the fear mongering No campaign and Rob has been totally on the money all the way.

Unbiased opinion ?

 

[SirRumpole]

Haha stole my line there Rump ?

As I said earlier in the thread the No supporters comments will not age well along with the fear mongering No campaign and Rob has been totally on the money all the way.

Unbiased opinion ?

Totally unbiased.

 

[StockyGuy]

Haha stole my line there Rump ?

As I said earlier in the thread the No supporters comments will not age well along with the fear mongering No campaign and Rob has been totally on the money all the way.

Unbiased opinion ?

"Yeah, well, you know, that's just like, uh, your opinion, man."

- The Dude (The Big Lebowski)

 

[Smurf1976]

As I said earlier in the thread the No supporters comments will not age well along with the fear mongering No campaign and Rob has been totally on the money all the way.

I won't claim expertise on this subject but I do pay close attention to what I see and hear.

Based on that, Labor won't be judged at the next election on whether they delivered the Voice or not.

They'll be judged on whether they lowered housing costs and living expenses.

At the moment, they're running a very real risk of shooting themselves in the foot politically by exerting so much effort on an issue with at best mediocre support meanwhile ignoring issues of mainstream concern.

Time will tell but that's certainly what I hear.

 

[rederob]

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

Sky News is anoxymoron. The comments go on to say this "...$364.6 million will be spent over the next three years to help deliver the referendum that will be held later this year." So the headline is not about the cost of the referebum at all.
In any event, you are just looking for excuses now because you can't mount a credible case for the "no" vote.

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

You missed my point, as "native title" is self explanatory, a bit like "government expenditure."

 

[wayneL]

 

[rederob]

They are already recognised and respected as the first inhabitants,

You can't seriously think that!
We keep having to tighten up race laws because of the continuing disrespect shown towards indigenous people. Aside from that there are over 200 years of history showing mistreatment and neglect rather than respect,

that is why they have land rights

No, Mabo had to fight through the High Court because for over 2 centuries indigenous land claims were swept aside. In other words our legal system had to be challenged at the highest level to agree that the concept of terra nullius was legal fiction.

and their culture is already recognised that is why they had the right to stop people climbing Uluru. So to infer that their isn't already recognition is false.

FYI Uluru is jointly managed by Anangu and the Australian Government, but the point is that it has never been a public asset allowing unrestricted access.

As for trepidation, that comes from the need to put something in the constitution, where any challenge to what the limits of powers the 'voice' has, can only be challenged through the high court and the high courts role is to interpret the constitution.

The proposed wording for the referendum question does not give any power to the Voice. A high Court challenge will have to relate to subsequent legislation.

Therefore giving the 'voice' a wide and vague description, means that its limits are wide and vague and open to varied interpretations.
For many people that is too vague, as can be seen by every discussion that is held about the issue.

You might want to brush up on the framework proposed for the Voice. It's role is limited to advice so your ideas are not sound.

Therefore the processes of the departments of aboriginal affairs and ATSIC need to be sorted out, putting another level of Government in the chain doesn't fix it, the chain is still as weak as the weakest link. So in reality what exists needs to be fixed not added to.

See above.
The bipartisan support that existed recognised the Voice would add the local level input into policy that is needed to differentiate one community's specific needs from another.

That is an emotional argument without substance, there are just as may aboriginals saying it isn't the right move, as there are saying it is.

Untrue. No polling supports you view.

You actually substantiate my comments, that the aboriginal affairs departments both Federal and State need a clean out, as you rightly say the status quo will remain.

I do not agree. There is a framework for policy development and implementation within all Departments of State. In keeping with the principles set out for the Voice there will need to be steps that clearly show how matters targeting indigenous people have sought their input and been tailored to their specific needs.

That tells the public, that ATSIC can't adjust their settings and can't be made to do so, therefore it is a failing in the system that will still remain.

ATSIC has not existed for over 18 years!

Also it isn't just 'white' Australians who would be, to use your words keeping a lid on ATSI progress, just in case you hadn't noticed Jacinta Price and others are indigenous.

You will need to show me how 3% of the population can win a majority in a majority of States.

Albo is the most senior proponent of the voice and is the public face pushing the agenda, to think he hasn't anything to do with it and wont be affected by the result is nonsensical and naive.

You are confused.
Australians for Indigenous Constitutional Recognition (AICR) - aka Yes 23 - is the official fundraising and governance body for the Yes campaign and Albo is not part of it. Nor did Albo feature at the official "yes" campaign launch in February.
Furthermore, zero government dollars support the "yes" campaign.
Albo has a media profile as the PM and supports the Voice, but Yes 23 is instead actively using high profile people in a range of sectors, most notably in sport. Separately, many organisations and businesses are using their ESG commitments to endorse the Voice.

Same as saying Albo's input is the same as everyone else's, when he has the opportunity to present his on national media, again diminishes the credibility of your argument.

I never claimed his input into the media was equal. Instead, anyones "no" vote can negate his single "yes" vote, so it's the population at large who bear the responsibility for the outcome. Accordingly, the outcome will reflect on the popular vote and Australians as whole.

 

[SirRumpole]

Separately, many organisations and businesses are using their ESG commitments to endorse the Voice.

Those organisations or individuals having, wanting or expecting government patronage are going to support what the government wants.

The hip pocket nerve wins every time.

 

[rederob]

Those organisations or individuals having, wanting or expecting government patronage are going to support what the government wants.

The hip pocket nerve wins every time.

I note you have never been able to address a single question I have put to you.
Your racism pervades every response, and this latest piece of fearmongering is another classic example from your playbook.

Do you have a rationale for why a community that has asked for something and does not get it, as happens on a regular basis, has somehow received "government patronage" or would be supporting "what government wants"? The average reader would notice that your comment is nonsensical.

 

[Sean K]

Yes, good article. Albrechtsen has been skewering the yes vote. Can't believe Craven has complained about being quoted word for word and absolutely in context. The no vote just have to keep quoting him and the likes of Langton, Mayo, Pearce and even Albo for what this is actually about.

Craven had said: “I think it’s fatally flawed because what it does is retain the full range of review of executive action. This means the voice can comment on everything from submarines to parking tickets … We will have regular judicial interventions.”

 

[sptrawler]

You can't seriously think that!
We keep having to tighten up race laws because of the continuing disrespect shown towards indigenous people.

You may want to check how many racially motivated disrespectful acts, are perpetrated by which race, before playing that card.

No, Mabo had to fight through the High Court because for over 2 centuries indigenous land claims were swept aside. In other words our legal system had to be challenged at the highest level to agree that the concept of terra nullius was legal fiction.

Legal systems always have to be challenged, that is the way a modern society works, as the 'voice' is supposed to have no power, your example is pointless. As it would still be the same situation, it would still require a court challenge, if the voice had no power.

FYI Uluru is jointly managed by Anangu and the Australian Government, but the point is that it has never been a public asset allowing unrestricted access.

So if it isn't a public asset, whose asset is it? Crown land

The proposed wording for the referendum question does not give any power to the Voice. A high Court challenge will have to relate to subsequent legislation.

Legislation which has yet to be determined and is the very reason for the trepidation of most people.

You might want to brush up on the framework proposed for the Voice. It's role is limited to advice so your ideas are not sound.

It's hard to brush up on the actual function and limitations of the 'voice', because they are yet to be legislated.

See above.
The bipartisan support that existed recognised the Voice would add the local level input into policy that is needed to differentiate one community's specific needs from another.

Which has already been in place for many years and folded. The National Aboriginal Consultative Committee, The National Aboriginal Conference, ATSIC and other such bodies.

Untrue. No polling supports you view.

It is just as true as your claim that the majority are in favour of it, the polling that the Yes pamphlet uses, was based on two polls one a poll of 300 people and the second based on a poll of 738 people.
As I've said on numerous occasions, a referendum of what the aboriginals want, would probably be a good start.

I do not agree. There is a framework for policy development and implementation within all Departments of State. In keeping with the principles set out for the Voice there will need to be steps that clearly show how matters targeting indigenous people have sought their input and been tailored to their specific needs.

It isn't a case of agreeing or disagreeing, in most of your posts you comment on the absolute failure of the current Government departments which necessitates the voice, I was just agreeing with you.
So I really don't know what you are disagreeing with? Yourself?

ATSIC has not existed for over 18 years!

Another failure?

You will need to show me how 3% of the population can win a majority in a majority of States.

You will actually have to ask Albo that, because it his lack of detail and preparation, that has left the 'voice' stranded it's nothing to do with me. Every question that is being asked points to the same problem PPP(pizz poor planning)

You are confused.
Australians for Indigenous Constitutional Recognition (AICR) - aka Yes 23 - is the official fundraising and governance body for the Yes campaign and Albo is not part of it. Nor did Albo feature at the official "yes" campaign launch in February.
Furthermore, zero government dollars support the "yes" campaign.
Albo has a media profile as the PM and supports the Voice, but Yes 23 is instead actively using high profile people in a range of sectors, most notably in sport. Separately, many organisations and businesses are using their ESG commitments to endorse the Voice.

Again I have nothing to do wit, nor influence how Albo wants to project himself to the public, but if he chose to champion the cause he should have been astute enough to have answers to obvious questions and saying it will be sorted after the referendum obviously isn't cutting it.
Except for those who have blind faith, but as you point out Robodebt has blunted a lot of the blind faith in Government and their good intentions.

I never claimed his input into the media was equal. Instead, anyones "no" vote can negate his single "yes" vote, so it's the population at large who bear the responsibility for the outcome. Accordingly, the outcome will reflect on the popular vote and Australians as whole.

If the voice fails, it will reflect on a poorly prepared, poorly presented, poorly thought out idea and not because of the intention being wrong.

As usual the bigots will claim it is a racist result and try to humiliate all and sundry, rather than be inward looking at their own failings to adequately present a sensible well thought out plan, to address a serious and ongoing problem.
Shame on them IMO, but I'm no expert, just observing the obvious.
Again thanks for a civil and courteous discussion on a very important issue.

 

[JohnDe]

An interesting and worrying read -

There’s no power and authority for us in the status quo By Thomas Mayor

Some excerpts -

If we are to protect our hard fought for gains and bring down the colonial systems that harm us, we need to do much more than a disarray of rallies, reactive protests, and diplomatic missions to Canberra. We need to be cohesive, and we need to be able to pursue our goals strategically. To do this, we must achieve the proposal from the unprecedented Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander consensus from the delegates present at Uluru — a constitutionally enshrined First Nation’s Voice.​

​

The Voice proposal was forged from our collective experiences and perspectives. To put it simply, a constitutional Voice means a guaranteed representative body — the structure that is required to utilise the power of unity — a vital step we must take.​

​

Establishing a Voice is how we can change the nation.​

​

With a constitutionally enshrined Voice, we could campaign for reparations for all First Nations— the #paytherent task cannot be left to a few. We could campaign for stronger land rights, actually addressing the problems with Native Title. And we would pursue these goals not just for First Nations people, but for all Australians, because we are all constrained by the poverty and injustices inflicted upon First Nations people.​

​

This is why I am a die hard supporter for a First Nations Voice as called for in the Uluru Statement. It is a campaign to achieve sovereignty in practice, because sovereignty means power and authority.​

​

To my brothers and sisters who show up, if you want to be heard in the colony and begin to dismantle the structures that oppress us, be courageous enough to fight for a First Nations Voice. It is a radical proposal — it is sovereignty and unity in practice — it will change the nation.​

 

[rederob]

Yes, good article. Albrechtsen has been skewering the yes vote. Can't believe Craven has complained about being quoted word for word and absolutely in context.

Craven's comments on submarines and parking tickets being possible subjects of "representation" are not supported anywhere. Nobody can show how the wording of the proposed change that requires that they "may make representations to parliament and the executive government on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples" could fall so far outside that scope..

The no vote just have to keep quoting him and the likes of Langton, Mayo, Pearce and even Albo for what this is actually about.

You mean the deceptions presented by "no" campaign supporters, given the purpose of the Voice has been clearly stated for anyone serious about learning more.

 

[Sean K]

Craven's comments on submarines and parking tickets being possible subjects of "representation" are not supported anywhere. Nobody can show how the wording of the proposed change that requires that they "may make representations to parliament and the executive government on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples" could fall so far outside that scope..

You mean the deceptions presented by "no" campaign supporters, given the purpose of the Voice has been clearly stated for anyone serious about learning more.

Just a reminder, Craven is a constitutional lawyer and yes campaigner. There's no deception presented, just a quote from someone of veritas on the yes case.

 

[rederob]

You may want to check how many racially motivated disrespectful acts, are perpetrated by which race before playing that card.

It was you who claimed they were "respected" so now you are agreeing with me!

Legal systems always have to be challenged, that is the way a modern society works, as the 'voice' is supposed to have no power, your example is pointless.
As it would still be the same situation, it would still require a court challenge, if the voice had no power.

What exactly requires a court challenge, using the Voice as a basis for your case? I otherwise have no idea what you are talking about as it makes no sense.

So if it isn't a public asset, whose asset is it? Crown land

The issue is who has a right to manage the use of the land. Just as people can't trespass on your property, you cannot do what you like on property that is not yours.

Legislation which has yet to be determined and is the very reason for the trepidation of most people.

You must have led your whole life in trepidation as laws pass through Parliament on a regular basis.

It's hard to brush up on the actual function and limitations of the 'voice', because they are yet to be legislated.

It's spelled out in the proposed Constitutional amendment. Legislation would outline how the Voice operates on a day to day basis.

It is just as true as your claim that the majority are in favour of it, the polling that the Yes pamphlet uses, was based on two polls one a poll of 300 people and the second based on a poll of 738 people.

Your claim neglected the fact that there was a statistical basis for my comment, and your counter claim now ignores the further statistical metric of "margin of error".

It isn't a case of agreeing or disagreeing, in most of your posts you comment on the absolute failure of the current Government departments which necessitates the voice, I was just agreeing with you.

My comments relate to how policy has occurred to date, and this reflects a process model which is consistent across most Departments. The Voice would change this by adding extra steps that sought local input into policies targeting ATSI peoples. It would be a significant benefit for ATSI peoples if the present policy development and implementation models were enhanced as proposed.

Again I have nothing to do wit, nor influence how Albo wants to project himself to the public, but if he chose to champion the cause he should have been astute enough to have answers to obvious questions and saying it will be sorted after the referendum obviously isn't cutting it.

The process was made clear and included the need for Parliament to settle the operational details. You are falling into the logical trap of being unable to separate purpose from operation.

The outcome if it fails will reflect on a poorly prepared, poorly presented and a poorly thought out idea.

That's your opinion, and not shared by the many experts who worked for over a decade to get us here.

 

[rederob]

Just a reminder, Craven is a constitutional lawyer and yes campaigner. There's no deception presented, just a quote from someone of veritas on the yes case.

Reminding me of what?
The fact that what I said regarding the scope of the Voice is accurate and that the Constitutional amendment would never see submarines and parking tickets being matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.

You also don't seem to understand the meaning of lots of words, but if you think I am wrong perhaps you can tell you me why the "no" campaign is using a supporter of the "yes" vote.

 

[JohnDe]

Sounds like the Voice will lead the path to a Treaty and more -

Treaties will take decades to reach a settlement with which both the Crown and First Nations people can truly be satisfied. A Voice to parliament can only help reach a settlement sooner by providing us greater power at the negotiation table. And there’s so much more than Treaty that we need to do ​

Our people have never enjoyed a vantage point quite like this: the Uluru Statement, five years on

Referendums in this country are not for the faint-hearted. We have work to do – but we know we have wide support for a First Nations Voice to federal parliament.

www.theage.com.au

 

[SirRumpole]

Do you have a rationale for why a community that has asked for something and does not get it, as happens on a regular basis, has somehow received "government patronage" or would be supporting "what government wants"? The average reader would notice that your comment is nonsensical.

I was referring to sporting bodies as organisations that receive government patronage or want to receive it.

"The Australian Federal Government has allocated $155 million for sport in the 2022-23 Federal Budget. This includes more than $117 million to Sport Australia and the Australian Institute of Sport (AIS) to extend the Sporting Schools program, fund projects to promote and create leadership opportunities for women and girls and expand community participation programs to help get Australians more active. Sporting Schools has received $79.6 million which will see it continue to provide free and fun sporting activities to school children until the end of 20241"

So I'm sure that these organisations will want to respond to government requests to support the YES vote.

I'm getting sick of your racist allegations, none of which has any merit so I think I'll just call you a prick and move on.

By your own admission you specialise in writing media releases for governments, and we know that means propaganda, lies, half truths and distortions, all of which you are an obvious expert in.

You have no idea about the feelings of the average Australian struggling to make ends meet while being asked to entrench forever another bureaucracy to cater for one small group of people and having our taxes pay for it. But then Canberra stuffed shirts aren't renowned for their affinity with 'ordinary' people are they?

 

[Sean K]

Reminding me of what?
The fact that what I said regarding the scope of the Voice is accurate and that the Constitutional amendment would never see submarines and parking tickets being matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.

You also don't seem to understand the meaning of lots of words, but if you think I am wrong perhaps you can tell you me why the "no" campaign is using a supporter of the "yes" vote.

You said, "not supported anywhere". You conveniently discount Craven's views.

I understand lots of words. I also understand why avatars go ad hom in just about every post.