Referendum 2023

Status
Not open for further replies.
Enmore_Tiger said:
It certainly must be frustrating and dissaponting to feel that way. I'm of convict heritage and the welcome to country doesn't make me feel that way. Certainly is interesting the different impact the same thing has on different people.

It is a bit tricky to understand though how a 'welcome' can make someone feel like an 'invader'.


Possibly the issue is that no legal process took place legitimising the occupation of the continent, the land wasn't legally ceded and no treaty was put in place (the only British colony where no Treaty was put in place). Certainly that's not your fault, but it might result in processes such as the Welcome to Country, leaving people feeling like it's not their country.
Click to expand...

Well, being indigenous to this land for 56 years, when I am "welcomed" to it, the clear implication by those doing the "welcoming" is that this land isn't mine. The "welcome" is then usually, but not always, followed by the words "always was, always will be, Aboriginal land"

So why are these words said? Clearly they are said with the intent of demonstrating Sovereignty.

If they are Sovereign, then we logically must be invaders.

It really isnt a bit tricky to come to this conclusion. Listen to their words. Understand their words.
 
To much un known will damage any chance this goes ahead , people today need as much info as they can get , Trust In politicians has fallen off a cliff over the years so it makes it very hard if people think there is more to something and their not told what it is , I see todays report is the yes vote is slipping again , so who knows how it will go , anyways we will all get a chance to head in and vote soon
 
shiretiger said:
Well, being indigenous to this land for 56 years, when I am "welcomed" to it, the clear implication by those doing the "welcoming" is that this land isn't mine. The "welcome" is then usually, but not always, followed by the words "always was, always will be, Aboriginal land"

So why are these words said? Clearly they are said with the intent of demonstrating Sovereignty.

If they are Sovereign, then we logically must be invaders.

It really isnt a bit tricky to come to this conclusion. Listen to their words. Understand their words.
Click to expand...
100%.
The funny thing is…I was brought up in the Aboriginal system….schooling, sporting, community etc…
Never once was I told growing up that Aboriginal people owned the land. They were the Custodians of it.
The language has been distorted over the past couple of decades to slowly introduce the theme of traditional ownership to the point that it is now the 100% accepted narrative…”they are the owners and don’t you question it”.

It annoys me when I see people whose families have lived here for 6-8 generations “welcomed” as if they are tourists, as a way to start off a business meeting or attend a sporting event. It raises one group above everyone else.
 
The Chad said:
Firstly, thank you to those that have tried explaining the whole topic as best they can. I actually feel I learned more from you than from either 'faction'.

And for me, there-in lies the rub.

We are expected to vote, very soon, on what may, or may not, be a change to our constitution that gives great weight, rightly or wrongly, to a specific section of the greater Australian community.

And we are expected to do this with no set outcome detailed, no real information on the expected outcomes, potential outcomes, or even the desired outcomes.

This is not an anti-Labor post. The opposition to the vote have done equally as bad at informing the people.

My point, for what it is, is that for all the people out there like me, like some of you, that don't KNOW what this will do or mean to the future- we are being FORCED to decide without the details being laid out for us.

For that- the responsibility (and fault) lies with Albenese, his government & the people pushing for the change. It is THEIR job to make us want to go along with them. And frankly, they haven't convinced people. Not enough people.

It might be coming from the best place in their hearts & minds. But it is incomplete. If you want to change a constitution, you don't do it without the people that are voting for it KNOWING it's for the better.

In court- you are innocent until proven guilty. The onus is on proving guilt. If you can't- case dismissed. For a referendum- you can't pass something we hope might be better, maybe.
Click to expand...
Thanks Chad. I'm always grateful we live in a country where people are free to disagree. As I posted earlier I'll be voting 'yes', but I'll agree the Yes campaign hasn't done a good job explaining itself. I suppose what's hard about giving the details of what the voice will say is we don't know exactly what advice this body will give yet. Only that we are giving Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people a chance to contribute to policies that affect them in the future - and the advice they give will be about policies that affect them. I think that's what's confusing. It's like having no member input on Wests Tigers Board. The decisions they make affect us but we don't get to contribute to them. And even if we were given a voice we couldn't say in advance exactly what changes to policy we would make. But we would have a lot of opinions on what is being done wrong. (not a good analogy but it's the first thing that came to mind). But cheers for thinking deeply on this. My family works in healthcare, so lot of respect for people who work in that field.
 
full80 said:
G

Great question Tiger-ferret. There's an article here that goes into some detail. The first body was set up by Whitlam and later strengthened by Fraser. After Hawke changed policy it became the most famous version ATSIC, which was abolished by John Howard in 2005. But the article lays out the reasons. https://theconversation.com/many-cl...nous-body-failed-heres-why-thats-wrong-209511
Click to expand...
It doesn’t lay out reasons, it offers biased opinions on the reasons.
This article was written by an associate professor from MacQuarie University who receives funding from the Australian Research Council through the Policy for self determination: the case study of AITSIC. This is a project commencing on the 2nd of January of this year and ending on 3rd of January of 2028 to “benefit and change the way Indigenous governance is understood, discussed, remembered and formulated in contemporary Australian Society”.

Whilst there may be some truth to what’s presented, it’s not the whole story. I remember ATSIC being absolutely corrupt. I remember watching groups plead for services and help and watching funds go to wealthier areas for projects that weren’t needed. Time and time again they were turned away at the door with excuses that the “well had run dry”…
 
I
Tucker said:
It doesn’t lay out reasons, it offers biased opinions on the reasons.
This article was written by an associate professor from MacQuarie University who receives funding from the Australian Research Council through the Policy for self determination: the case study of AITSIC. This is a project commencing on the 2nd of January of this year and ending on 3rd of January of 2028 to “benefit and change the way Indigenous governance is understood, discussed, remembered and formulated in contemporary Australian Society”.

Whilst there may be some truth to what’s presented, it’s not the whole story. I remember ATSIC being absolutely corrupt. I remember watching groups plead for services and help and watching funds go to wealthier areas for projects that weren’t needed. Time and time again they were turned away at the door with excuses that the “well had run dry”…
Click to expand...
I suppose the difference is the Voice, as proposed, won't administer policies like ATSIC did. Just offer advice. Agree, people I know with experience of ATSIC talk about the issues it had with corruption. Like any body that gives out taxpayer money - like Wollongong and Canterbury Councils, or State and Federal governments, as exposed by ICAC, power will attract some bad actors who look to steal and benefit mates at the expense of people who they are meant to be helping. I don't feel like Aboriginal and Torre Strait Islander people are particularly prone to corruption.
 
full80 said:
Thanks Chad. I'm always grateful we live in a country where people are free to disagree. As I posted earlier I'll be voting 'yes', but I'll agree the Yes campaign hasn't done a good job explaining itself. I suppose what's hard about giving the details of what the voice will say is we don't know exactly what advice this body will give yet. Only that we are giving Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people a chance to contribute to policies that affect them in the future - and the advice they give will be about policies that affect them. I think that's what's confusing. It's like having no member input on Wests Tigers Board. The decisions they make affect us but we don't get to contribute to them. And even if we were given a voice we couldn't say in advance exactly what changes to policy we would make. But we would have a lot of opinions on what is being done wrong. (not a good analogy but it's the first thing that came to mind). But cheers for thinking deeply on this. My family works in healthcare, so lot of respect for people who work in that field.
Click to expand...
A better analogy is that all members get to vote for the Wests Tigers Board but only members who were previous members of Balmain/ Western Suburbs Football Clubs get to vote for a second group that tells the board what to do. That is the equivalent analogy.
 
full80 said:
I

I suppose the difference is the Voice, as proposed, won't administer policies like ATSIC did. Just offer advice. Agree, people I know with experience of ATSIC talk about the issues it had with corruption. Like any body that gives out taxpayer money - like Wollongong and Canterbury Councils, or State and Federal governments, as exposed by ICAC, power will attract some bad actors who look to steal and benefit mates at the expense of people who they are meant to be helping. I don't feel like Aboriginal and Torre Strait Islander people are particularly prone to corruption.
Click to expand...

Google Geoff Clark
 
full80 said:
I don't feel like Aboriginal and Torre Strait Islander people are particularly prone to corruption.
Click to expand...
It depends how full blood they are and where they live.

Activists who’ve rarely set foot in remote communities have commandeered the focus of all discussions and have set a narrative that few are brave enough to publicly take on. Take Lydia Thorpe for example. She is a classic racist. Hateful piece of shit that I am totally embarrassed by. She talks like she spent her whole life in the Kimberly fishing the Gibb and spearing her tucker. Stupid woman was born and raised in Carlton. Thomas Mayo is another one. Divisive bastard and race baiter. He reminds me of Charlie Bucket searching for a golden ticket. He believes he has found it and his focus within the Uluṟu Statement from the Heart involves treaty and reparations. Or “pay the rent” as he puts it.
These people don’t give a damn and will hold the country to ransom, given the opportunity, whilst nothing changes in the worst hotspots.
 
Pretty good to see a reasonable debate here with some informed opinions. Unfortunately (for me), it's looking like the outcome will be no. Which I think is a damn shame for something with minimal downside and significant potential upshot. I hope it isn't the end of the debate about how to improve outcomes for Aboriginal People in this country.
 
Tucker said:
It depends how full blood they are and where they live.
Click to expand...

No it doesnt. Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders are no more prone to corruption than any other race as a factor of their race. To suggest otherwise is the literal definition of racism.
Tucker said:
Activists who’ve rarely set foot in remote communities have commandeered the focus of all discussions and have set a narrative that few are brave enough to publicly take on. Take Lydia Thorpe for example. She is a classic racist. Hateful piece of shit that I am totally embarrassed by. She talks like she spent her whole life in the Kimberly fishing the Gibb and spearing her tucker. Stupid woman was born and raised in Carlton. Thomas Mayo is another one. Divisive bastard and race baiter. He reminds me of Charlie Bucket searching for a golden ticket. He believes he has found it and his focus within the Uluṟu Statement from the Heart involves treaty and reparations. Or “pay the rent” as he puts it.
These people don’t give a damn and will hold the country to ransom, given the opportunity, whilst nothing changes in the worst hotspots.
Click to expand...

I agree 100% with your opinions of Thorpe and Mayo, but its because they are unprincipled moralless people, not because they are aboriginal.
 
Mistymuzzle said:
No it doesnt. Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders are no more prone to corruption than any other race as a factor of their race. To suggest otherwise is the literal definition of racism.


I agree 100% with your opinions of Thorpe and Mayo, but its because they are unprincipled moralless people, not because they are aboriginal.
Click to expand...
Mate, you misunderstand.
I saw you misunderstand another post as well.
No one is stating they are more prone. I’m stating they are prone. To suggest otherwise is stupid.
 
Mistymuzzle said:
You think Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders are more prone to corruption because one of them is?
Click to expand...

I doubt that they are any more prone to corruption than any other Australians are.

My comment was merely to highlight the naivety of the comment that I quoted and highlighted.

There are criminals in all aspects of society.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Staff online

Members online

Total: 1,218 (members: 20, guests: 1,198)
Back
Top