Referendum 2023

[Tucker]

Here’s another question:

The literature on The Voice sets out a direction that it’s membership will be gender balanced. What exactly does this mean? We live in a time and age where people claim gender is a social construct only. This requires way more context.

I’m not sure how aware any of you are with regard to Aboriginal hierarchical structures, but most communities are matriarchal. In fact a lot of them are very sexist in this regard…the opposite of what Western communities are used to. Look at the way people like Marcia Langdon, Patricia Anderson, Megan Davis etc..hold themselves. They are confident, forthright and determined. They seem almost smug and condescending when talking. This is because their opinions in Aboriginal communities are very highly valued.

I’ve been in meetings with mixed gender (female and male) speakers. The men speak last and only when they are invited to by the aunties. I have even been in meetings where men raise particians between themselves and their counterparts, so that they can get a word in edge ways. I’m not joking. Now imagine those men are transgender or one of the other genders that people claim exist. I can’t see this aspect working at all.

It seems an ignorant push towards modern day practice…why is it necessary when it will only create drama likely to derail meetings?

 

[watersider]

So, what little we do know about how the voice operates is this:

1. The Government initiates work on a new bill.​

2. They request The Voice Committee to provide recommendations to assist with further development of the bill.​

3. The Voice Committee go away, and conduct their own research throughout their constituents and draft their recommendations.​

4. The Voice presents their input to the Government​

5. The bill gets drawn up and goes through the regular process.​

This seems to be an over view of how The Voice works.

My question is how long does the Government give the committee to complete the meetings and draw up their documents involved in points 2 and 3? I don’t know your background with working with Aboriginal bodies, but my experience is, they cannot be held to schedules. As it pertains to my point 3 above, this action could take a week, a month or even a year to complete and you cannot pressure them to get it done sooner. It’ll take as long as it takes. Meanwhile the Government sits by patiently waiting?
I don’t see how this will be effective or efficient in any way. I don’t see how this provides better outcomes for communities.

Cheers, I get what you mean now.

First, I'm ignorant of machinery of politics so if this is a suggestion to prove ignorance of the inner workings of government policies I advocate then I'll not win. But I vote and I have opinions and I believe in stuff based on the mess of what I know.

I also have no experience with working with indigenous bodies, and I accept your characterisation.

But to your discussion, I don't think there's any requirements for parliament to consult the voice, so if it takes time it is only lessening it's potential voice not delaying govt. I think the voice will discuss key issues coming from indigenous communities and identify priorities and potentially solutions that have been successful. I think it will seek to review or make recommendations on problematic policies.

So I'd see it as follows:

1. Voice makes recommendation separate from the business of parliament
2. Government decides to act or not
3. If accepted, then maybe something like your steps plays out.

If policy takes longer and better outcomes are achieved, then that's well done. If it just becomes a bigger mess and it leads to greater neglect of indigenous communities then they should change the construction or use of the voice through parliament. Parliament should not sit by and wait on indigenous issues. But parliament will not be delayed in any decision it makes. They may get a recommendation and act immediately with policy with an understanding that the voice will provide feedback and suggestions after a certain time. Ultimately it is up to parliament to determine how it wants to use the voice.

It's interesting thinking about how it could be used and the way it could empower previously voiceless people. Also true it may not work and will need to be changed.

I feel like that's not a very helpful response so please feel free to challenge my assumptions.

 

[Tucker]

Cheers, I get what you mean now.

First, I'm ignorant of machinery of politics so if this is a suggestion to prove ignorance of the inner workings of government policies I advocate then I'll not win. But I vote and I have opinions and I believe in stuff based on the mess of what I know.

I also have no experience with working with indigenous bodies, and I accept your characterisation.

But to your discussion, I don't think there's any requirements for parliament to consult the voice, so if it takes time it is only lessening it's potential voice not delaying govt. I think the voice will discuss key issues coming from indigenous communities and identify priorities and potentially solutions that have been successful. I think it will seek to review or make recommendations on problematic policies.

So I'd see it as follows:

1. Voice makes recommendation separate from the business of parliament
2. Government decides to act or not
3. If accepted, then maybe something like your steps plays out.

If policy takes longer and better outcomes are achieved, then that's well done. If it just becomes a bigger mess and it leads to greater neglect of indigenous communities then they should change the construction or use of the voice through parliament. Parliament should not sit by and wait on indigenous issues. But parliament will not be delayed in any decision it makes. They may get a recommendation and act immediately with policy with an understanding that the voice will provide feedback and suggestions after a certain time. Ultimately it is up to parliament to determine how it wants to use the voice.

It's interesting thinking about how it could be used and the way it could empower previously voiceless people. Also true it may not work and will need to be changed.

I feel like that's not a very helpful response so please feel free to challenge my assumptions.

The Voice is apparently partly going to operate as I stated, Government requests representations, they are supplied. I got this info from: https://voice.gov.au/resources/information-booklet
They have to provide a United Voice.
250 mobs in Australia with each containing up to 7 families.
167 languages spoken.
Groupings come from every part of the country, all with different perspectives, I.e. the saltwater people of the coastlines and Torres Straight Islands, the freshwater, rainforest, deserts and spinifex peoples of the mainland.
All want a say, all should be heard.
How the hell this committee of 24 can pull all that together everytime they are asked to boggles the mind. Getting them to agree will be painstaking.

 

[watersider]

The Voice is apparently partly going to operate as I stated, Government requests representations, they are supplied. I got this info from: https://voice.gov.au/resources/information-booklet
They have to provide a United Voice.
250 mobs in Australia with each containing up to 7 families.
167 languages spoken.
Groupings come from every part of the country, all with different perspectives, I.e. the saltwater people of the coastlines and Torres Straight Islands, the freshwater, rainforest, deserts and spinifex peoples of the mainland.
All want a say, all should be heard.
How the hell this committee of 24 can pull all that together everytime they are asked to boggles the mind. Getting them to agree will be painstaking.

I think you're now questioning the notion of democracy. Yeah, there will be diverse opinion but it will be about finding consensus through that. Sure though, lots of disagreement and discussion. I think that's a good thing. Ultimately just need to be able to navigate through that otherwise their voice will not be valuable. They will also be accountable for the decisions they reach rather than another faceless govt appointed bureaucracy. Again, I like this and love your description of all the diverse and remote indigenous voices now being included.

 

[Tucker]

I think you're now questioning the notion of democracy. Yeah, there will be diverse opinion but it will be about finding consensus through that. Sure though, lots of disagreement and discussion. I think that's a good thing. Ultimately just need to be able to navigate through that otherwise their voice will not be valuable. They will also be accountable for the decisions they reach rather than another faceless govt appointed bureaucracy. Again, I like this and love your description of all the diverse and remote indigenous voices now being included.

No, not questioning the notion of democracy, just pointing out what a monumental job this will be if it’s to be conducted properly.
I don’t think it will be for a couple of reasons.
I have no doubt that the 24 positions will be held by activists who will be tempted to take short cuts so that their wants are realised and they can big note themselves. This will please the government, who will require expedited replies. I fear this organisation will be corruptible and that will result in bugger all voice for real Aboriginal and Torres Straight communities.
I also think it’ll take years to set this up and get it going.

At the end of the day, we could end up with a half arsed organisation, either stalling governments or selling their opinions to governments whilst moving towards treaty and reparations.
It will rip communities apart as poor non indigenous who are currently battling together with indigenous people to make a living and keep these communities working will be left behind.

 

[earl]

If the voice was actually likely to achieve anything concrete, why shouldn't it also be used for any number of other disadvantaged groups or intractable issues? (it's not, so it won't).

In my head this is an easy one to respond too. They are Indigenous. There is no reason for any other disadvantaged groups to have a Voice.

We also have Indigenous affairs etc. This argument is in my opinion a poor one.

 

[earl]

White eshay does something dumb and goes to jail, black eshay does same dumb thing and gets let off because his family tree is more special.

Earl this is ridiculous.

I understand this upsets some people but it's not ridiculous at all. At some point it's about trying to improve the situation.

We need as a society to stop the black deaths in custody. If this stops one person getting locked up who then commits suicide in jail it's worth it.

Also not many people go to jail for something so trivial. It shows how poorly they've adapted to our society. This could even be considered Institutional racism.

 

[earl]

I dont think anyone wanted to be decisive on purpose. I believe we all agree that we want a better and happier planet. Its just that - it seems they are playing the people.

Let's be very clear and you can see it on this thread. Some people are divisive. You can't stop that.

Little JImmy having a tantrum is not a reason to do nothing.

 

[twentyforty]

It’s interesting that an advocate for the voice suggested there may be 24 members of the Voice, pretty much the same number of NIAA offices located strategically around the country.

 

[twentyforty]

What is the biggest problem facing Aboriginal people?

 

[shiretiger]

Do you guys like and listen to Fordham? Is he any good?

NFI. I dont listen to the radio. Those quotes were from a news article that thought they were news worthy.

 

[Muffstar]

Do you guys like and listen to Fordham? Is he any good?

Yeah I think he is OK. Good interviewer not afraid to ask the hard questions and has balance, unlike the ABC.

 

[shiretiger]

I understand this upsets some people but it's not ridiculous at all. At some point it's about trying to improve the situation.

We need as a society to stop the black deaths in custody. If this stops one person getting locked up who then commits suicide in jail it's worth it.

Also not many people go to jail for something so trivial. It shows how poorly they've adapted to our society. This could even be considered Institutional racism.

I couldn't be more polar opposite. You see, I believe that all lives matter.

It is interesting Earl that the most recent statistics available - 2021/2022 - show that non indigenous deaths in custody were 4 times higher than indigenous deaths in custody. FACT.

Deaths in custody in Australia 2021-22

 

[Mistymuzzle]

With this black sovereignty argument, I don't understand why a change to a constitution they don't recognise as lawful would make any difference to them? Whatever it says, isn't it still illegitimate until they've recognised it? While the voice will be a representative body of indigenous people that does not in itself sanction the constitution. She would know much more about indigenous issues and the constitution so I must be missing something. But I'd summarise my understanding as follows:

black sovereignty movement without voice does not recognise constitution and continues to fight for sovereignty.

Black sovereignty movement with a voice to parliament in constitution is still not recognised and they continue to fight for sovereignty.

How does a voice change their situation? Thank you to those for assisting me to understand.

You have just articulated the Lidia Thorpe "Vote No" argument. I have a very low opinion of Lidia Thorpe but she is at least consistent and logical on this one.

 

[earl]

With this black sovereignty argument, I don't understand why a change to a constitution they don't recognise as lawful would make any difference to them?

I really don't like this one. It should be a completely separate issue. This to me is aiming for something that is so extreme it basically can't be implemented.

How do you work ? Do you pay tax to the Australian government ? Do you pay tax to both governments ? How would the new government provide education, health care, infrastructure etc ?

I put it the cooker basket. It's extreme.

 

[earl]

I couldn't be more polar opposite. You see, I believe that all lives matter.

I don't like this argument at all. It's the good old zero-sum game argument. You don't believe you can help anyone without impacting someone else.

It's also a political spiel from the far right.

It is interesting Earl that the most recent statistics available - 2021/2022 - show that non indigenous deaths in custody were 4 times higher than indigenous deaths in custody. FACT.

Deaths in custody in Australia 2021-22

There is no link (it didn't work for me). I'm into facts but I think you've got it wrong. Indigenous people are 2-3% of the population. The number of deaths in custody for non-indigenous people should be 50 times the number of Indigenous deaths.

If that data is correct then it's clear there is a massive issue. That is facts.

*** If you provide a link that proves something different we can revisit this point but at the moment the facts are clearly stating there is a massive issue.

 

[Kaito]

I put it the cooker basket. It's extreme.

Where it belongs. Hasn't got a snowflakes chance
in hell of happening. The word sovereignty has
been weaponized by the no campaign. Just more
scare tactics. It's not what the voice is for/about

 

[earl]

Fine to vote no and don't be limited by viewing things as necessarily left or right.

I can't control how people vote but I like to see the rational reasons on both sides and arguments that pass my BS detector.

It's come down to me to two issues:-

1. Recognition of Indigenous people in the constitution.
2. Better management of the spend that we currently have on Indigenous issues.

I'm voting yes on these issues. I haven't bought into any other reasons that people on either side have raised.

I do think there is a rational reason to vote no if you somehow understand constitutional law and see some concerns with this but I haven't heard many constitutional lawyers argue this point well.

 

[earl]

Where it belongs. Hasn't got a snowflakes chance
in hell of happening. The word sovereignty has
been weaponized by the no campaign. Just more
scare tactics. It's not what the voice is for/about

It's weird how this comes up. I can't see that ever working. I'd love to put the cookers onto their own little place in the world and see how they go. It'd be hilarious.

 

[shiretiger]

I don't like this argument at all. It's the good old zero-sum game argument. You don't believe you can help anyone without impacting someone else.

It's also a political spiel from the far right.



There is no link (it didn't work for me). I'm into facts but I think you've got it wrong. Indigenous people are 2-3% of the population. The number of deaths in custody for non-indigenous people should be 50 times the number of Indigenous deaths.

If that data is correct then it's clear there is a massive issue. That is facts.

*** If you provide a link that proves something different we can revisit this point but at the moment the facts are clearly stating there is a massive issue.

Sorry Champ. Link fixed.

Funny how you bring up the far right. Next you'll be blaming Trump.

Fact:

2021/2022 there were 106 deaths in custody. Of those, 24 were indigenous, 81 were non indigenous and there was one poor bloke that they didn't know what box he ticked.