The Voice

[rederob]

Disagree Mr Galah. The no camp will win this by just quoting the yes campaigners over and over.

That's an excellent point.
Those supporting the "no" vote on this basis are as intellectually challenged as those in America who continue to believe the regular lies told by Donald Trump. They seek confirmation in selective MSM and social media and widely spread lies, deception and misinformation at every opportunity to suck in those who are incapable of thinking for themselves.

They've really cocked this up, dramatically. Albo saying it's got nothing to do with anything else but recognition is almost a final straw in credibility.

Given the referendum question only introduces recognition, and gives it a practical focus, Albo is right. I have never yet seen a credible case for a different interpretation.

 

[JohnDe]

Just wondering which of them are better than Australia, New Zealand and Canada, it should be an interesting list.

I don't know about 'better', because the country you are born in is almost always where your heart is. However, three come to mind - the United States, Germany, Japan

 

[sptrawler]

The mere fact that refugees who arrive in Australia with nothing but the clothes on their backs, from places like Somalia, Siri Lanka etc and still forge a life for themselves, while not speaking English when they arrive and being black skinned shows that the racial card is a very flimsy argument for the Yes campaign.

So the City, country town aboriginals who can avail themselves of the same opportunity that other citizens enjoy, really are contributing to their own outcomes be they good or bad.

The only two issues IMO that the 'Voice" can lay claim to having any credible reason for being, is the compensation for the colonisation and the issue of dealing with the problems associated with remote and very remote communities, as they have a unique set of issues.

The issues they have, is there is no logical reason for them being there, other than the fact there is a cultural and emotional attachment to the area by the local inhabitants.

Why they need something in the constitution to fix that, is just showing how out of touch Canberra and the political circus is. IMO all it will do is exacerbate the issue as there would be even less motivation to change their circumstances they have a constitutional stamp of approval.
They were here first, they were happy living like this, why should we change just because you want us to.

 

[Sean K]

Does anyone have a different interpretation of Makarrata other than reparations?


“On behalf of the Australian Labor Party, I commit to the Uluru Statement from the Heart in full.” Albo, 30 May 22


Uluru Statement:

We call for the establishment of a First Nations Voice enshrined in the Constitution.

Makarrata is the culmination of our agenda: the coming together after a struggle. It captures our aspirations for a fair and truthful relationship with the people of Australia and a better future for our children based on justice and self-determination.

We seek a Makarrata Commission to supervise a process of agreement-making between governments and First Nations and truth-telling about our history.


Thomas Mayo:

"Pay the Rent for example, how do we do that in a way that is transparent and that actually sees reparations and compensation to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people beyond what we say and do at a rally?"

 

[SirRumpole]

The mere fact that refugees who arrive in Australia with nothing but the clothes on their backs, from places like Somalia, Siri Lanka etc and still forge a life for themselves, while not speaking English when they arrive and being black skinned shows that the racial card is a very flimsy argument for the Yes campaign.

So the City, country town aboriginals who can avail themselves of the same opportunity that other citizens enjoy, really are contributing to their own outcomes be they good or bad.

The only two issues IMO that the 'Voice" can lay claim to having any credible reason for being, is the compensation for the colonisation and the issue of dealing with the problems associated with remote and very remote communities, as they have a unique set of issues.

The issues they have, is there is no logical reason for them being there, other than the fact there is a cultural and emotional attachment to the area by the local inhabitants.

Why they need something in the constitution to fix that, is just showing how out of touch Canberra and the political circus is. IMO all it will do is exacerbate the issue as there would be even less motivation to change their circumstances they have a constitutional stamp of approval.
They were here first, they were happy living like this, why should we change just because you want us to.

Lets face it , 'disadvantage' usually boils down to economic factors which are not unique to aboriginals.

Solve economic disadvantage for all and we will have a better country that is united and not divided by race.

 

[sptrawler]

I don't know about 'better', because the country you are born in is almost always where your heart is. However, three come to mind - the United States, Germany, Japan

Well from visiting all those countries, I feel there is a lot more opportunity for new arrivals and local inhabitants, in Canada, New Zealand and Australia.
The only reason Australia would become a republic, would be because as with the 'Voice', the elites will play on Australians inferiority complex which drives Australians to wanting prove themselves worthy.
Then when we become a republic the elites with the money, make the rules and run the society, as in those other republics.
Then the real power and money happens, the U.S doesn't have national referendums where all the people get to tell the Government yes or no.

 

[sptrawler]

Lets face it , 'disadvantage' usually boils down to economic factors which are not unique to aboriginals.

Solve economic disadvantage for all and we will have a better country that is united and not divided by race.

It is difficult to solve economic disadvantage, when you want to live in the middle of nowhere, with nothing to support the community.
So enterprises have been started in the past, orange plantations, emu farms, cattle farms, they fail because that isn't what the indigenous want to do.
In our society the community would fold, in theirs the community stays, well a lot stay and the young then get into trouble it isn't as though they don't know what is out there in the World they have T.V's, cars and not a lot to do.

 

[rederob]

Does anyone have a different interpretation of Makarrata other than reparations?

There is no indigenous interpretation that comes anywhere near the interpretation that you suggest, so you appear to be fearmongering or ill informed.

 

[JohnDe]

Well from visiting all those countries, I feel there is a lot more opportunity for new arrivals and local inhabitants, in Canada, New Zealand and Australia.

I have relatives in the USA, they have done pretty good for themselves.

My relatives from both my grandparent's side left Europe in the 1960's, some came to Australia, and some went to the USA & Canada. All have made a very good life for themselves, and all their children and grandchildren are happy with good lives. Though, our North American relatives do have extremely large homes on big parcels of land.

 

[rederob]

It is difficult to solve economic disadvantage, when you want to live in the middle of nowhere, with nothing to support the community.

That was never their choice. History shows dispossession, and that has been consistently been in relation to lands of value. Furthermore, dispossession often involved transfer to lands they had no cultural connection to. Tangible evidence of this occurs when there are disputes over which tribe should be involved in welcome to country ceremonies.

So enterprises have been started in the past, orange plantations, emu farms, cattle farms, they fail because that isn't what the indigenous want to do.

Not necessarily. The reports I read on some of these projects showed there were no plans for sustainability as they invariably overlooked infrastructure needs and failed to provide a budget that would address the long-term set up costs that are built into any business model. In plain English they were planned to fail.

 

[sptrawler]

I have relatives in the USA, they have done pretty good for themselves.

My relatives from both my grandparent's side left Europe in the 1960's, some came to Australia, and some went to the USA & Canada. All have made a very good life for themselves, and all their children and grandchildren are happy with good lives. Though, our North American relatives do have extremely large homes on big parcels of land.

I didn't say there is no opportunity, just the disparity between the haves and have nots is more marked.
Have you checked out their welfare systems?
What is their basic unemployment benefit conditions, annual leave, sick leave, leave loading, medical benefits, pension benefits etc.
I've worked for the U.S Govt, their employees can't get over Australia's work and welfare conditions.

 

[sptrawler]

That was never their choice. History shows dispossession, and that has been consistently been in relation to lands of value. Furthermore, dispossession often involved transfer to lands they had no cultural connection to. Tangible evidence of this occurs when there are disputes over which tribe should be involved in welcome to country ceremonies.

Not necessarily. The reports I read on some of these projects showed there were no plans for sustainability as they invariably overlooked infrastructure needs and failed to provide a budget that would address the long-term set up costs that are built into any business model. In plain English they were planned to fail.

Have you ever thought of going to the Melbourne comedy festival, you come up with some crackers. ?

 

[Sean K]

There is no indigenous interpretation that comes anywhere near the interpretation that you suggest, so you appear to be fearmongering or ill informed.

Makarrata is 'treaty and truth telling'.

You don't think a 'treaty' will involve cash? Or, "pay the rent" as Mayo(r) claims and Midnight Oil like to shout out? Maybe those claims are just ill informed. I suppose we'll all find out if the yes vote gets up.


From Albo's website:

Delivering treaty & truth: fulfilling the promise of Uluru​

Labor is the only party to support the Uluru Statement in full: a constitutionally enshrined Voice to Parliament; and a Makarrata Commission to oversee a national process for Treaty and Truth-telling.

An Albanese Labor Government will establish a Makarrata Commission as a priority.

This sits alongside Labor’s commitment to a referendum on a constitutionally enshrined Voice to Parliament in the first term of an Albanese Government.

As called for in the Uluru Statement, the Makarrata Commission will have responsibilities for overseeing processes for Treaty-Making and Truth-Telling.

The Makarrata Commission will be independent and have responsibility for truth telling and treaty making. It will work with a Voice to Parliament when it is established.

 

[Sean K]

We do know what the initial cost of the Makarrata Commission will be:

The cost of the Makarrata Commission will be met from within existing departmental resources. $26.5 million will be allocated in the first two years of operation to support truth-telling projects, including at a local level. It is anticipated that state, territory and local government will match this funding.

What the hell is a truth-telling project? Maybe a history PhD by Pascoe?

 

[JohnDe]

I didn't say there is no opportunity, just the disparity between the haves and have nots is more marked.
Have you checked out their welfare systems?
What is their basic unemployment benefit conditions, annual leave, sick leave, leave loading, medical benefits, pension benefits etc.
I've worked for the U.S Govt, their employees can't get over Australia's work and welfare conditions.

Don't believe everything you see in the movies or on the news. There is a welfare system in the US, it may not be as comprehensive as ours but it is there.

We have a great welfare system, but why are there so many homeless people in our city's? Why are people camping in parks, sleeping under a shop veranda?

How many are homeless in Australia?


122,494 people

What is Australia's homeless population? On Census night in 2021, statistics show 122,494 people were estimated to be experiencing homelessness. That's an increase of 5.2 per cent since the 2016 Census.

Homelessness Australia: Statistics & Facts​

The Salvation Army Australia

 

[sptrawler]

Don't believe everything you see in the movies or on the news. There is a welfare system in the US, it may not be as comprehensive as ours but it is there.

I know that, as I said I worked for and with them.

 

[JohnDe]

I've made it a point to talk to people about the Voice referendum. Previously I've been too timid, not wanting to rock the boat and cause a stir, but this is too important for that.

In the past few weeks I have spoken to people in the pub, the shop and mostly my customers, so far all have said that they will be voting no, and for the reasons that we have been putting on this thread.

That is not proof that the referendum will fail, because I have also talked to some family and friends that are left wing and very much on the Yes side, their reasoning is the same as rederob and ifocus. It was this group that, early on, made me think that the Yes win was inevitable. Maybe because they are close, maybe because they are loud.

Things are changing.

Australia is one of the best counties in the world for a reason, it's the people. We get it right.

Bring on the referendum.

 

[SirRumpole]

So enterprises have been started in the past, orange plantations, emu farms, cattle farms, they fail because that isn't what the indigenous want to do.

What do the indigenous want to do ?

 

[wayneL]

Anecdotal and second hand, but FWIW:

A client of mine works for Telstra and was digging a trench in order to lay some cable in an Aboriginal cultural heritage area. There were two indigenous guys there "observing" works ($800 a day each ostensibly to sit in their car and play on their phones.

My guy was chatting to them about the voice referendum and they said they both intend to vote no. The reasons given were that it is too divisive and will ultimately cause more resentment and troubles between the indigenous and non-indigenous community.

 

[TimeISmoney]

The mere fact that refugees who arrive in Australia with nothing but the clothes on their backs, from places like Somalia, Siri Lanka etc and still forge a life for themselves, while not speaking English when they arrive and being black skinned shows that the racial card is a very flimsy argument for the Yes campaign.

So the City, country town aboriginals who can avail themselves of the same opportunity that other citizens enjoy, really are contributing to their own outcomes be they good or bad.

The only two issues IMO that the 'Voice" can lay claim to having any credible reason for being, is the compensation for the colonisation and the issue of dealing with the problems associated with remote and very remote communities, as they have a unique set of issues.

The issues they have, is there is no logical reason for them being there, other than the fact there is a cultural and emotional attachment to the area by the local inhabitants.

Why they need something in the constitution to fix that, is just showing how out of touch Canberra and the political circus is. IMO all it will do is exacerbate the issue as there would be even less motivation to change their circumstances they have a constitutional stamp of approval.
They were here first, they were happy living like this, why should we change just because you want us to.

Only 17% of indigenous live in remote communities, so, yep, most of them have access to good govt infrastructure as everyone else.