The Voice

[sptrawler]

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

There you go, the crux of the matter, if the proposed legislation outlining how the Voice would operate on a day to day basis, was presented at the same time as the proposed referendum, all this negativity and worry would have been avoided.

To have people vote on a change to the constitution, while telling them that how that change will operate will be worked out later, isn't very inclusive, to use a nice word that is bandied around.

The presentation as is, leads to the other possibility that I mentioned early in the thread, maybe it was set up to fail in the first place, it certainly looks that way.

 

[rederob]

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

No logic there. Craven said what he said and nowhere is it supported beyond that!

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

We could try "supported," above, which is a fail on your part.
And you cannot show you understand what "deceptive" means, despite making a claim suggesting you did.

 

[JohnDe]

Social engineering at its worst, give a one-sided story to youth and don't let them a chance to explore and ask questions.

Understanding the Uluru Statement: Taking the invitation to the people through the classrooms​

8 June 2022 Issue: Semester 1 2022 Category: For your Future​

​

Thomas Mayor explains why teachers should be aware of the significance of the Uluru Statement from the Heart and outlines its history. In a thoughtful message to all public education teachers, he examines what we can do to spread the message about why an Indigenous voice in parliament must be enshrined in the Australian Constitution. . .​

Understanding the Uluru Statement: Taking the invitation to the people through the classrooms

Thomas Mayor explains why teachers should be aware of the significance of the Uluru Statement from the Heart and outlines […]

cpl.nswtf.org.au

 

[rederob]

To have people vote on a change to the constitution, while telling them that how that change will operate will be worked out later, isn't very inclusive to use a nice phrase.

This is old ground. While there is a framework for the "operation" of the Voice, it will always be subject to Parliament. The trap "yes" proponents won't fall for is twofold. First, like the republic referendum, everyone wanted to focus on the detail of how a new head of state would be elected instead of the purpose, ie., should we become a republic. Secondly, "no" proponents could rightly argue that you couldn't say the Voice would operate that way as there was no consensus in Parliament that this was the case.

The presentation as is, leads to the other possibility that I mentioned early in the thread, maybe it was set up to fail in the first place, it certainly looks that way.

Given initial polling and bipartisan support suggested it was going to be a "shoo-in" before Albo got Labor over the line, I don't regard that as a sustainable argument. Moreover, once Labor got in, and clearly supported the Voice, the idea of backing a hobbled horse does not make sense.

 

[sptrawler]

This is old ground. While there is a framework for the "operation" of the Voice, it will always be subject to Parliament. The trap "yes" proponents won't fall for is twofold. First, like the republic referendum, everyone wanted to focus on the detail of how a new head of state would be elected instead of the purpose, ie., should we become a republic. Secondly, "no" proponents could rightly argue that you couldn't say the Voice would operate that way as there was no consensus in Parliament that this was the case.

That unfortunately is human nature, people don't like feeling they are making an important decision, without having the facts.
Using the Republic example, the very same people who are championing the Republic cause, are the very same people who make the most noise about Presidential overreach as per Trump.
So of course the public will want to focus on the President issue, the same is happening with the voice, there is a perception of bully tactics by the 'Yes' side, which makes people more skeptical of motive.

Given initial polling and bipartisan support suggested it was going to be a "shoo-in" before Albo got Labor over the line, I don't regard that as a sustainable argument. Moreover, once Labor got in, and clearly supported the Voice, the idea of backing a hobbled horse does not make sense.

Albo could quite easily change tack and develop a more cohesive proposal, all it means is taking a step back and approaching it from a different angle, that would look as though there is a real attempt to appease the public unrest.
After all it would only require presentation of the proposed legislation, which has to be formulated anyway.

To keep pushing on regardless, indicates to me that the intent is to create more unrest and reservations, like I said IMO it is becoming an Albo defining issue, I hope he has read the room well.

 

[TimeISmoney]

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.

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

The cost will most likely be ever-changing and especially now that most of Australia wants to vote no for many different reasons. You obviously have been ignorant of others and my own concerns on here. Even Albo is trying to backpedal when he gets asked serious questions. The voice isn't going to be very different from what they already have now unless there are hidden details that the prime mister left out. The fact that the govt needs to politicise the yes campaign in schools with juveniles has a lot to say in itself.

Nobody knows who is going to represent the panel, it's a big concern to many when you have radicalisists like Mayor, and knowing that he was one of the original people behind the Ulura statement, he could end up being on govt coffers spreading hate speech about certain parts of the Australian populace. Is this the type of divide you really want to see?

There are different classes of native titles, but one class gives a certain occupation to one group and an exclusion zone to others. They pay no rates, no land tax on these parcels of land and some are still digging into Australian tax money for maintenance, not sure how much more they expect. Dividing Australia on who can use crown land sounds good to only the people that can refuse others access. What you fail to see is that every hard-working Australian pays a fee to access their purchased land and it's forever ongoing, they didn't steal it from anyone, how the govt acquired it originally is a completely different issue. How many times do these people have to pay for this land that most of their ancestors didn't even have anything to do with the British colonisation of this country?

The premise of 'the voice' acting on behalf of every Australian indigenous is the biggest furphy of them all, how many communities have come forward on social media and said they know nothing about it and others said it doesn't represent their view outright? If they can't this part right what type of mess is the rest of it going to look like? The Labor govt is just politicising an issue to divide a population, while they self help to millions of dollars, and meanwhile the same people struggling to find self-identity and life meaning in remote Australia will still be in the same position years later. Do you see any of their family members living in the streets begging for a roof over their heads?

I just won't even waste any more of my time going on about the constitutional change for a minority group in a democratic country, if you can't see what's wrong there, you most likely never will.

 

[TimeISmoney]

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.”

Being associated with the no vote could or may be viewed as bad publicity when you have a far left woke govt in power.

Two high court judges (Kenneth Haynes & Robbert Frech) said that it was "highly unlikely to open the litigation floodgates", notice the word 'unlikely'' doesn't mean 'never or impossible'. Then you have Ian Callinan another high court judge, in short, basically said that it's a good possibility without stretching the imagination too far. If there are already high court judges with a difference in opinion then it's pretty much challengeable by any means.

 

[sptrawler]

The left leaning SMH sums it up pretty well.

Faltering Yes campaign like watching a slow-motion car crash

The Yes camp needs a radical shake up if it is to have any chance of turning around its campaign for a Voice to parliament.

www.smh.com.au

From the article:
The Voice proposal has been around a decade or more. Umpteen reports have been prepared, parliamentary hearings held, models proposed.

But it is Albanese who has taken the risk and committed to a referendum – and ultimately it is on this prime minister to save the Voice, or to pull it if it is destined to fail.
Loading
To save itself, the Yes campaign must pull out all the stops. Releasing draft legislation would be a good place to start, as it would deny the No camp the most crucial aspect of its campaign – the ability to trade on uncertainty.
Albanese and the Yes campaign need to stop shying away from having a fight over the detail and just have it.
Before the last election, Albanese was fond of saying Labor would “kick with the wind in the final quarter” and win the federal election.

But what chance does the Yes campaign have of winning if it finds itself 10 goals down at three-quarter time?

If the downward trend in Voice support can’t be reversed in the next couple of months, the referendum should be pulled – because defeat would be devastating.

 

[rederob]

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

This thread is about a topic that you have no idea about, as shown by another irrelevance

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.

Yet you have no defence of your position, and have never had the capacity to answer a question I have put to you.

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.

When I was a public servant we had a policy of writing without fear of favour. Ministerial advisers put their spin on content. Given the information I used was available to anyone, your claim of lies, half truths and distortions would have been quickly jumped on by anyone with half a brain.

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.

I recently assisted a relative get out of a contract by paying out their car and negating exorbitant purchasing terms. You could choose to use information that is reliable, but judging by your posts, you prefer to go off on tangents. FYI the average indigenous person is in a more precarious situation than the "average Australian" according to all data.

 

[Sean K]

No logic there. Craven said what he said and nowhere is it supported beyond that!

We could try "supported," above, which is a fail on your part.
And you cannot show you understand what "deceptive" means, despite making a claim suggesting you did.

You're not making a lot of sense Rob. RUOK?

 

[rederob]

You obviously have been ignorant of others and my own concerns on here.

On the contrary. I have addressed most issues presented here and found them to have little to no merit. Few deal with the actual referendum proposal and are instead based on distraction, misinformation and outright lies.

The voice isn't going to be very different from what they already have now unless there are hidden details that the prime mister left out.

I have shown this will not be the case, and has zero to do with hidden details. Do yourself a favour and read for understanding. First, an implemented Voice will change how policies are both developed and implemented. Secondly, a Constitutionally enshrined Voice significantly prevents changes in government from changing tack. Ideally it will lead policies that have nothing to do with failed ideologies and instead concentrate on meeting local community concerns. Thirdly, it places an onus on communities to be proactive in not just coming up with solutions, but actively working towards their success. That is, "ownership" is transferred from government to locals.

The fact that the govt needs to politicise the yes campaign in schools with juveniles has a lot to say in itself.

This is a bald faced lie!

Nobody knows who is going to represent the panel,

Nobody knows the outcomes of election beforehand!!!

The premise of 'the voice' acting on behalf of every Australian indigenous is the biggest furphy of them all, how many communities have come forward on social media and said they know nothing about it and others said it doesn't represent their view outright?

In case you didn't know, the fact you voted against something does not imply you might gain from it being put in place. Furthermore, a key element of the Voice is to close the gap, so in that regard it does actually encompass every indigenous person.

The Labor govt is just politicising an issue to divide a population,

You still can't admit that a bipartisan proposal was thwarted by Dutton. Not just that, but most of the work to get the Voice to where it is today was carried out under a Coalition government. Your claim of politicisation seems totally back to front, and blind freddy knows where division arises.

I just won't even waste any more of my time going on about the constitutional change for a minority group in a democratic country, if you can't see what's wrong there, you most likely never will.

I get that. You are obviously not concerned about Australia's poor reputation for dealing with indigenous issues. And you clearly don't care that we could do much better. It's a reflection of the type of person who will vote "no."

 

[rederob]

You're not making a lot of sense Rob. RUOK?

I have put a number of questions to you which you won't address and you a wondering if I am OK.
It's even funnier when you play the man and fail to address content. Stump up with something meaty and prove you have the capacity to present a valid case for voting no that is based on the referendum question.

 

[IFocus]

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.”

Quoting Albrechtsen?

Hmmm not a good look ?
BTW shocker article and obviously so.

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.

Wrong Craven was negotiating the wording and failed to win his position but clearly supported the Voice no if’s or buts failing to also quote other leading experts, high court justices, chief justice etc shows the false position the no vote proposes

 

[JohnDe]

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

https://www.ncca.org.au/natsiec/162-poor-fellow-my-country-ces-talk-2/file

Is this the same Mundine convicted of child sex offences? Graeme Mundine?

Former Head of Aboriginal Catholic Ministry convicted of child sex crimes​

A well-known Aboriginal rights advocate and prominent figure in the Catholic archdiocese of Sydney has been sentenced to prison for historic offences of pedophilia.

www.sbs.com.au

Quote Reply

 

[Sean K]

Quoting Albrechtsen?

Hmmm not a good look ?
BTW shocker article and obviously so.



Wrong Craven was negotiating the wording and failed to win his position but clearly supported the Voice no if’s or buts failing to also quote other leading experts, high court justices, chief justice etc shows the false position the no vote proposes

Didn't quote her. Please stop lying. She provided a bunch of quotes of yes activists.

Got no idea what your second point is other than Craven actually said what he said.

 

[TimeISmoney]

On the contrary. I have addressed most issues presented here and found them to have little to no merit. Few deal with the actual referendum proposal and are instead based on distraction, misinformation and outright lies.

I have shown this will not be the case, and has zero to do with hidden details. Do yourself a favour and read for understanding. First, an implemented Voice will change how policies are both developed and implemented. Secondly, a Constitutionally enshrined Voice significantly prevents changes in government from changing tack. Ideally it will lead policies that have nothing to do with failed ideologies and instead concentrate on meeting local community concerns. Thirdly, it places an onus on communities to be proactive in not just coming up with solutions, but actively working towards their success. That is, "ownership" is transferred from government to locals.

First Nations Voice
The Uluru Statement calls for the ‘establishment of a First Nations Voice enshrined in the Constitution’. This has been interpreted in light of past suggestions put forward for the establishment of some form of representative body for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. There is no definitive statement about the form such a body would take, but proponents of the idea (such as Noel Pearson, who sits on the Referendum Council) have previously propounded that such a body would sit alongside Parliament to provide non-binding advice on legal and policy matters affecting Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.

Research

Research

www.aph.gov.au

Ideally it will lead policies that have nothing to do with failed ideologies

All the past policies are so bad that they all failed.


14 Jul 2023
There has been a 30 per cent reduction in the rate of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander young people (10-17 years) in detention, while preschool enrolments have improved. Land subject to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people’s legal rights or interests also remains on track.

Encouragingly, the proportion of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people aged 25-64 who are employed is improving and on track. Progress has also been made towards a further seven targets, but not at the level required for the targets to be met on schedule.

https://www.indigenous.gov.au/news-and-media/announcements/closing-gap-annual-data-compilation-report-2023

The graph above shows a long-term trend at CDU (Charles Darwin University) of increasing Indigenous EFTSL (Equivalent Full-Time Student Loads) since 2008. This positive upward trend is continuing. Overall EFTSLfrom Indigenous students grew by 7.58% in 2019. New student load grew by 3.5% and continuing student load grew by 7.6% due to improved Indigenous student retention rates for 2019. Whilst CDU is 14th in the sector for Indigenous student load, our Indigenous student load as a proportion of total domestic load (Participation Rates) is much higher than the rest of the sector. For example, participation for Indigenous students living in the NT was 10.8% in 2019; whilst 5.8% of domestic students studying with CDU and living in States and Territories outside of the NT identify as Indigenous. ISSP effectively funds three initiatives at CDU. These are 1) salaries for stud

https://www.cdu.edu.au/files/2021-01/issp-2019-performance-report.pdf

"All Indigenous students will be guaranteed a Commonwealth-supported place at the university of their choice, regardless of where they live, as part of a set of reforms designed to make higher education more accessible for all Australians."

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-07-19/all-indigenous-students-to-be-guaranteed-a-funded-uni-place/102622982?f

This is a bald faced lie!

No it's not, I've seen a photo with school kids holding up yes23 cards, then given yes23 pamphlets to take home to their parents.

You still can't admit that a bipartisan proposal was thwarted by Dutton. Not just that, but most of the work to get the Voice to where it is today was carried out under a Coalition government. Your claim of politicisation seems totally back to front, and blind freddy knows where division arises.

You are obsessed with Potato Head as he's known in Qld, I have no following or alliance with Mr Patato. You are obviously blind to the public negativity towards the yes vote campaign.

I get that. You are obviously not concerned about Australia's poor reputation for dealing with indigenous issues. And you clearly don't care that we could do much better. It's a reflection of the type of person who will vote "no."

The true colours of the Uluru statement come out in the Tomas Mayor videos that no one was meant to see, if you think I'm going to support stuff like that on the merits of helping indigenous, you'd be totally wrong.

 

[Smurf1976]

the average indigenous person is in a more precarious situation than the "average Australian" according to all data.

Sure.

But I'm sure we could use a different definition and find that some Aboriginal people aren't in that group and some others are in that group. Using race as the distinction is arbitrary, we could just as easily pick height, city versus country, age or any number of other things. Even just having the wrong surname would be a disadvantage in some towns and smaller cities.

Point being the issue is disadvantage not race per se. Whilst there's a correlation, not all Aboriginal people are disadvantaged and not all disadvantaged people are Aboriginal.

Should we give assistance to an Aboriginal multi-millionaire because they're Aboriginal?

Or should we just help anyone who's genuinely disadvantaged regardless of race?

I think most would pick the latter. If someone's fallen down for whatever reason then as a society we ought do our best to pick them up and do whatever's necessary to put them back on their feet. What their skin colour is shouldn't be a criteria in making that decision.

 

[wayneL]

Or should we just help anyone who's genuinely disadvantaged regardless of race?

I think most would pick the latter.

Count me in on that. Race grifters can go straight to Hell.

 

[rederob]

But I'm sure we could use a different definition and find that some Aboriginal people aren't in that group and some others are in that group.

You can't redefine "average." And it clearly implies some are more and some are less than, so not sure what your point is.

Using race as the distinction is arbitrary,

Seriously?
We are talking about first nations peoples and their plight, compared to non-indigenous. Your following points are not rational

Point being the issue is disadvantage not race per se.

Please read about the background to the Voice as you could not be further from the truth.

Whilst there's a correlation, not all Aboriginal people are disadvantaged and not all disadvantaged people are Aboriginal.

So what? That type of comment can be applied to every correlation that exists.

Should we give assistance to an Aboriginal multi-millionaire because they're Aboriginal?

Can you think of any reason indigenous millionaires suffer the social disadvantage of tens of thousands who do?
Can you think of any basis for local indigenous communities to separately put forward policies for millionaires?
I think you need to read about what the Voice proposes to achieve, and for whom.

Or should we just help anyone who's genuinely disadvantaged regardless of race?
I think most would pick the latter.

You have completely missed the point. Government has actually put in place policies for all people, and even attempts to do things differently to accommodate the varying needs of some. Despite these policies an identifiable category continues to suffer a higher rate of social disadvantage than all others, and across a broader spectrum of areas.

If someone's fallen down for whatever reason then as a society we ought do our best to pick them up and do whatever's necessary to put them back on their feet. What their skin colour is shouldn't be a criteria in making that decision.

Your "someone" happens to be a significant number of indigenous people that have been failed by governments since colonisation, and their levels of disadvantage quantified in Closing the Gap reports.
I personally find your "motherhood" statements to be lame excuses for not coming to grips with the need for a new approach to remedying our national disgrace of failed indigenous policies.

 

[rederob]

No it's not, I've seen a photo with school kids holding up yes23 cards, then given yes23 pamphlets to take home to their parents.

All you have done with that reply is compound your lie. I suggest you come up with better evidence as your claim was very different.

You are obsessed with Potato Head as he's known in Qld, I have no following or alliance with Mr Patato. You are obviously blind to the public negativity towards the yes vote campaign.

I suggest you go back and read my comments carefully.
It's a fact there was bipartisan support.
It's a fact Dutton, with a proven poor history of intolerance of indigenous issues, reneged on that.
It's also a fact that I have stated in this thread that I did not believe the "yes" vote would get up.
So again, none of your claims are accurate.

The true colours of the Uluru statement come out in the Tomas Mayor videos that no one was meant to see, if you think I'm going to support stuff like that on the merits of helping indigenous, you'd be totally wrong.

You seem incapable of distinguishing radical comments from real world practicalities.
If you think I am wrong, show where Mayo's ideas have been reflected in anything at all being put to government or being put to the referendum?