Certified Legendary Thread Covid, Life, UFOs, Food, & Wordle :(

[gouki88]

Hey if anyone has an informed opinion on the indigenous voice to parliament, please let me know. What actual power does the voice have? It it meaningful or just lip service being paid to this role?

Also happy to lend my voice to it, have done some work related to it

 

[NMBB]

Also happy to lend my voice to it, have done some work related to it

A voice on the voice! Currently using "voice" as start word for Wordle

 

[South of the Yarra]

The best person to ask would be South of the Yarra. I am sure he will clarify for you.

The Royal Sampler Happy for you to message if you want.

 

[Black_White]

The big questions about the Voice to parliament

What powers would it have? What issues would it advise on? Who would be a member?

www.theage.com.au

For me it’s rather simple.
We’ve been throwing millions, even billions, of dollars at the first nations issue for decades.
And yet there is still higher child mortality, worse health outcomes, higher incarceration rates, lower life expectancy and less work opportunity.
What we are doing right now isn’t working. We need a circuit breaker. We need a change. We need to stop making decisions without valid input into those decisions.
On October 14th I will cast my vote fully expecting it to be on the losing side.
But I will sleep the sleep of the just on that night.

 

[ZEV]

The big questions about the Voice to parliament

What powers would it have? What issues would it advise on? Who would be a member?

www.theage.com.au

For me it’s rather simple.
We’ve been throwing millions, even billions, of dollars at the first nations issue for decades.
And yet there is still higher child mortality, worse health outcomes, higher incarceration rates, lower life expectancy and less work opportunity.
What we are doing right now isn’t working. We need a circuit breaker. We need a change. We need to stop making decisions without valid input into those decisions.
On October 14th I will cast my vote fully expecting it to be on the losing side.
But I will sleep the sleep of the just on that night.

I find it so heartbreaking that I am asked to vote on an issue that I have no real understanding of, will have no effect on me but can be of benefit to others.

I'm guessing that it's not perfect. But it's a start. Can't see how anyone could see it any other way.

 

[The Royal Sampler]

Thanks for the offers of guidance, peeps. I’m very keen to keep an open mind, but the two quotes below feel like a deathblow to my chances of voting “yes” at present.

However, according to a set of eight design principles released by the government, members of the Voice would be “chosen by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people based on the wishes of local communities” to serve fixed terms and would not be appointed by the government.

The scope of the body’s powers would be defined by parliament and could be changed at any time, too.

If I’m reading this correctly, an undefined process would lead to a group of people being awarded, via the Constitution, an undefined amount of power which could be changed at any time.

I’m going to sound like an American in morbid fear of tyranny, but it seems imprudent to vote for such a thing. I would like some safeguards against corruption and some defined boundaries around the powers of the voice.

 

[sr36]

Do you remember the 'look guess' method? Popular in the 60s but like all the other fads that came into vogue it bred a bunch of illiterate kids. You'd think that after all these years schools would have determined at least one method that seems to work, and stuck with it.

The issue is the idea of "one method that seems to work". Someone promotes their cure all and schools and sometimes the whole industry gets sucked into one method only. The reality is that most of what is tried is valid as long as it's not the only method, as good readers use a combination of strategies to read effectively. We identify words on sight, and we decode with phonics and prediction.

What they've identified recently is the thing most likely to make someone slow to read is in the pre-reading stage- difficulty in recognising and breaking a word into sounds. That will be the early years focus that gets pushed hard, and that leads into phonics and some schools will do only phonics. But if reading was only phonics the Chinese wouldn't be able to read their non-phonetic characters.

 

[Copeland]

What do you think of this?

 

[Maggie5]

Thanks for the offers of guidance, peeps. I’m very keen to keep an open mind, but the two quotes below feel like a deathblow to my chances of voting “yes” at present.





If I’m reading this correctly, an undefined process would lead to a group of people being awarded, via the Constitution, an undefined amount of power which could be changed at any time.

I’m going to sound like an American in morbid fear of tyranny, but it seems imprudent to vote for such a thing. I would like some safeguards against corruption and some defined boundaries around the powers of the voice.

I don't see this as a power grab. I am voting YES. This is the amendment we are voting on:

The proposed amendment reads:

Chapter IX - Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples
129. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice

In recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia:

1. There shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice
2. he Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice may make representations to the Parliament and the Executive Government of the Commonwealth on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.
3. The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws with respect to matters relating to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, including its composition, functions, powers and procedures.

Also this may help.

Indigenous Voice to Parliament | Australian National University

Responding to common concerns about an aboriginal and torres strait islander voice First Nations portfolio Background

www.anu.edu.au

What do you think of this?

What is it about?

Don't worry, researched him.
He sounds like Trump, on the vote showing NO is leading: "They cannot reverse this trend without massive rigging".

 

[The Royal Sampler]

I don't see this as a power grab. I am voting YES. This is the amendment we are voting on:

The proposed amendment reads:

Chapter IX - Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples
129. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice

In recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia:

1. There shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice
2. he Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice may make representations to the Parliament and the Executive Government of the Commonwealth on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.
3. The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws with respect to matters relating to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, including its composition, functions, powers and procedures.

Also this may help.

Indigenous Voice to Parliament | Australian National University

Responding to common concerns about an aboriginal and torres strait islander voice First Nations portfolio Background

www.anu.edu.au

Thanks, I’ll have a look and get as well informed as I reasonably can be. My concern is not about a “power grab” by indigenous Australians, but about the powers the voice will have, and the ability for the selection process and/or agenda to be corrupted, given the current state of world politics. Possibly naïveté on my part but that’s why I’m asking.

 

[gouki88]

Thanks for the offers of guidance, peeps. I’m very keen to keep an open mind, but the two quotes below feel like a deathblow to my chances of voting “yes” at present.





If I’m reading this correctly, an undefined process would lead to a group of people being awarded, via the Constitution, an undefined amount of power which could be changed at any time.

I’m going to sound like an American in morbid fear of tyranny, but it seems imprudent to vote for such a thing. I would like some safeguards against corruption and some defined boundaries around the powers of the voice.

What do you think is the threat of corruption in an advisory body giving non-binding advice?

 

[The Royal Sampler]

What do you think is the threat of corruption in an advisory body giving non-binding advice?

Negligible, but I didn’t like that “powers can be changed at any time” point made by The Age.

 

[gouki88]

Negligible, but I didn’t like that “powers can be changed at any time” point made by The Age.

Sure, but those powers are subject to MPs, who we vote in and out. What alternative would make you more comfortable? I don’t think there’s a viable alternative for accountability. The Solicitor-General is about as risk-averse as they get, and he’s on board

 

[sr36]

Thanks, I’ll have a look and get as well informed as I reasonably can be. My concern is not about a “power grab” by indigenous Australians, but about the powers the voice will have, and the ability for the selection process and/or agenda to be corrupted, given the current state of world politics. Possibly naïveté on my part but that’s why I’m asking.

But the voice doesn't have "powers" in the proposed constitutional amendment. Powers to enact laws or make decisons still lie with the government. What's being proposed is a compulsion for the government to hear an Aboriginal perspective.

They haven't defined how that perspective will be formed or how it will be shared because that's not something you want to be constitutionly bound as that's something that will and should be adjusted over time.

 

[gouki88]

But the voice doesn't have "powers" in the proposed constitutional amendment. Powers to enact laws or make decisons still lie with the government. What's being proposed is a compulsion for the government to hear an Aboriginal perspective.

They haven't defined how that perspective is formed or how it will be shared because that's not something you want to be constitutionly bound as that's something that will and should be adjusted over time.

Our Constitution is very light-on in general. No mention of the PM, Cabinet or democracy

 

[The Royal Sampler]

Sure, but those powers are subject to MPs, who we vote in and out. What alternative would make you more comfortable? I don’t think there’s a viable alternative for accountability. The Solicitor-General is about as risk-averse as they get, and he’s on board

I’m not proposing anything at this stage, I’m in the shut-up-and-listen phase.

 

[Black_White]

I find it so heartbreaking that I am asked to vote on an issue that I have no real understanding of, will have no effect on me but can be of benefit to others.

I'm guessing that it's not perfect. But it's a start. Can't see how anyone could see it any other way.

For some reason we’ve become a society that views everything to be 100%.
When something isn’t 100% we need to blame someone else.
When a vaccine doesn’t work for everyone, we need to blame someone.
Bottom line is, nothing in this world or this life is guaranteed to be 100%.
But the way we have addressed the issues that face the oldest living culture in the world is failing. Has failed.
So if we value them, and we value their culture, then we have to change it up.
Breaks my heart when I see the statistics that tell the awful truth.
Will a voice provide immediate relief? No I don’t think so.
Will it provide a foundation for long term relief? Yes, I believe so.
As I’ve said right from the start of all this, it is a huge ask to get this referendum across the line. It is so easy to use misinformation and outright lies (because the referendum is treated like an election campaign so lies are actually not illegal!) to scare people into thinking the voice will somehow affect their day to day lives.
It won’t.
To convince people that the voice can be a positive for us all is a much harder sell.

 

[Black_White]

Thanks for the offers of guidance, peeps. I’m very keen to keep an open mind, but the two quotes below feel like a deathblow to my chances of voting “yes” at present.





If I’m reading this correctly, an undefined process would lead to a group of people being awarded, via the Constitution, an undefined amount of power which could be changed at any time.

I’m going to sound like an American in morbid fear of tyranny, but it seems imprudent to vote for such a thing. I would like some safeguards against corruption and some defined boundaries around the powers of the voice.

There is no “power” for representatives of the voice.
The voice is simply a mechanism for recommendations and input on issues that affect the first Australians.
It is not a mechanism to get anything into law.

 

[Black_White]

Very powerful article.

The movie that erased my doubts about the Voice

If there was someone on the Labor side who needed assurance, it might have been me – but not after the opening scene of this one film.

www.smh.com.au

 

[Kappa]

The big questions about the Voice to parliament

What powers would it have? What issues would it advise on? Who would be a member?

www.theage.com.au

For me it’s rather simple.
We’ve been throwing millions, even billions, of dollars at the first nations issue for decades.
And yet there is still higher child mortality, worse health outcomes, higher incarceration rates, lower life expectancy and less work opportunity.
What we are doing right now isn’t working. We need a circuit breaker. We need a change. We need to stop making decisions without valid input into those decisions.
On October 14th I will cast my vote fully expecting it to be on the losing side.
But I will sleep the sleep of the just on that night.

Considering you're voting "yes" to changing our constitution, could you please answer some of these questions

1: Who will sit on the voice, and are they elected or appointed? Who will elect/appoint them and why?

2: Do they have a budget? What is it?

3: If the Voice is to advise on policies impacting Indigenous Aussies, what law or policy doesn’t impact Indigenous Australians?

4: Does the voice have to be consulted on all issues that may effect indigenous people? How long does this consultation process last for?

5: Why will the voice be different to any of the other indigenous advisory groups we've had?

 

[sr36]

Considering you're voting "yes" to changing our constitution, could you please answer some of these questions

1: Who will sit on the voice, and are they elected or appointed? Who will elect/appoint them and why?

2: Do they have a budget? What is it?

3: If the Voice is to advise on policies impacting Indigenous Aussies, what law or policy doesn’t impact Indigenous Australians?

4: Does the voice have to be consulted on all issues that may effect indigenous people? How long does this consultation process last for?

5: Why will the voice be different to any of the other indigenous advisory groups we've had?

None of those things should appear anywhere near the constitution - except for point 5 - the only constitutional difference is that the government will be obliged to hear them.

You're not voting for next year's budget or next year's committe delegates or whatever your questions seem to be suggesting. You're voting for or against the Government being obliged to hear an indigenous perspective. What form the voice takes is a later debate and will be subject to change by this and subsequent governments - it'll probably take a fair while and a fiar bit of change to get it right.

 

[Kappa]

None of those things should appear anywhere near the constitution - except for point 5 - the only constitutional difference is that the government will be obliged to hear them.

You're not voting for next year's budget or next year's committe delegates or whatever your questions seem to be suggesting. You're voting for or against the Government being obliged to hear an indigenous perspective. What form the voice takes is a later debate and will be subject to change by this and subsequent governments - it'll probably take a fair while and a fiar bit of change to get it right.

How can you not know 99% of the important information and still vote yes to changing the constitution? It's utterly ridiculous.

The main question is how is this different to other indigenous advisory groups? They all gave advice to the government too.

Also, what law or policy DOESN'T effect indigenous australians? How long do we need to wait for them to consider new policies or law?

 

[sr36]

How can you not know 99% of the important information and still vote yes to changing the constitution? It's utterly ridiculous.

Do you think the constitution answers these questions about the Government of Australia?

1. Who will sit in the government and are they elected or appointed? Who will elect/appoint them and why?

2: Do they have a budget? What is it?

3: If the Government is to make laws impacting Aussies, what law or policy doesn’t impact Australians?

4: Does the Government make decisions on all issues that may effect Australians? How long does this decision making process last for?

You're voting for a principal. Should the governemnt be obliged to hear an Aboriginal perspective.

Your questions will be subject to change by current and future governments if the principal is passed.

 

[Kappa]

Do you think the constitution answers these questions about the Government of Australia?

1. Who will sit in the government and are they elected or appointed? Who will elect/appoint them and why?

2: Do they have a budget? What is it?

3: If the Government is to make laws impacting Aussies, what law or policy doesn’t impact Australians?

4: Does the Government make decisions on all issues that may effect Australians? How long does this decision making process last for?

We are not voting on putting a new definition or group of government into the constitution.

If we were putting something like that in the constitution i would be extremely wary unless it was detailed in length.

Putting something new in the constitution is extremely scary, and if u dont get that u dont understand law. It's 10 times worse when it's poorly defined and ambiguous with no obvious benefit.

We've had countless indigenous advisory groups before, why is this different exactly ?

 

[sr36]

We are not voting on putting a new definition or group of government into the constitution.

If we were putting something like that in the constitution i would be extremely wary unless it was detailed in length.

Putting something new in the constitution is extremely scary, and if u dont get that u dont understand law. It's 10 times worse when it's poorly defined and ambiguous with no obvious benefit.

We've had countless indigenous advisory groups before, why is this different exactly ?

FFS. What about this amendment is extremely scary.

To address your questions - I'm assuming that you do know that with or without the voice passing a strong government could pass bills that make Indigenous delegation on a wide matters compulsory, with an enormous budget, delegates being chosen however they deem appropriate, etc...They could also stop consulting Aboriginals on a whole range of matters that most would consider appropriate - including Aboriginal communities - your fear mongering is just silly.

The voice will just ensure that some form of consultation with Aboriginal communities has to occur, even if we get a fascist government in power.