Discussion The Random Discussion Thread

[phantom13]

And change that isnt done right is useless
And just agreeing with something without all the information isn't the right thing either

Fair point, but the original discussion was whats the worst case scenario versus the potential benefits.

I still maintain there really is no downside (aside from some sunk money, which, honestly, that is fun tickets in parliament and im cool with losing a few bucks in pursuit of better outcome for First Nations Australians). The alternative really is to change nothing which i think were all agreeing is not a good outcome.

I really can’t do this all day but out of respect last one. I give you credit for understanding that I’m simply making a point about lifestyle choice and use an extreme example to highlight that point. Nether the less is leads on to extremely complex issues relating to the provision of health and education in all areas not just remote ones. There has been no shortage of money and you can hardly argue discrimination when it’s considerably more per person than non indigenous.

What makes you think I’m arguing for the status quo simply because I’m voting no to the voice? I’d really have some truth telling on both sides and I’d audit everyone and everything as my departments have always been. This terrible waste and these terrible outcomes in some instances simply aren’t good enough. I’d say to you that the voice is a massive risk and simply wrong in principle yet it‘s being held up as the magic cure for incompetence, waste and yes corruption in many cases. I’d also so that I’ve used my extreme examples to highlight that realistic expectations also need to be the order of the day.

I’m sure you’re aware of the royal flying doctor and the school of the air, yes this is the life of all those who choose a remote lifestyle. I also know very well a husband and wife who have taught in those remote localities from the torres straight to the NT, it’s an eye opener that’s for sure on so many levels.

Ok I’ll be reading when I have the opportunity.

I havent indicated youre advocating for the status quo but as much as i like your suggestions, theyre not on the table, the voice is. Not getting the voice isnt likely to mean you get Treaty instead, in fact id argue not getting the voice effectively buries any potential progress on the matter at all.

I really dont see how the voice is a risk, its an advisory body, that all, it provides advice and i dont think anyone, anywhere is calling is a magic cure for anything. It really is a baby step that might assist in getting direct advice and prioritizing issues for Indigenous Australians or it might do absolutely nothing.

 

[BigPowerForward]

But its not a debate for a different time, a lot of people would like to know this stuff before they decide how to vote. Thats not a bad thing that people want info before we change the constitution and it doesn't make them a racist if they are thinking about voting no

Back to original comment this has been very badly implemented by the Govenment

To me this is the crux of the whole debate. If the yes campaign was so clear and so compelling, there would be very little the no campaign could put forward to dissuade people from voting yes. Instead we have a divided nation.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

Does anyone actually think that

The video was titled " Is this the big fix" i agreed that its not, i didn't suggest voting no, actually i didn't suggest voting either way.

 

[PoppedCorn]

Social media works on you.

My social media is bigfooty
Don’t do anything else and I’m not even a boomer!

 

[phantom13]

To me this is the crux of the whole debate. If the yes campaign was so clear and so compelling, there would be very little the no campaign could put forward to dissuade people from voting yes. Instead we have a divided nation.

Somewhat a matter of perspective though.

It seems very clear cut to me that there is zero downside to a yes vote, versus plenty for a no vote. Im obviously biased and likely ignoring something (although i still havent heard anything) but were all guilty of confirmation bias.

 

[True Believer]

Serious question, in the event that the voice gets up, how can it possibly make anything worse?

Like i agree with the sentiment that stuff should just be cracking on but its not. This might be a circuit breaker, it might not, but i really cant see how it possibly makes the situation worse.

Listen and read beyond the simple surface phrase "the Statement from the Heart is only one page". Key members involved in creating that document, such as Thomas Mayo, have publicly stated, on camera, that they intend this to be the first step towards implementing "traditional communist values" in Australia. Read the full 126 pages behind the one-page summary of the Statement, which includes minutes from all the main consultation meetings, and every single one of them references treaties, they reference reserved seats in parliament, reserved seats in the senate, potentially a separate Indigenous parliament, hand-over of all resource rights including land, sea, water and minerals, permanent ongoing reparations via a percentage of the GDP.

If anyone thinks this is simply going to be a representative body that will do no harm, they are deluded. This differs from everything before it because it would be in the constitution, it cannot be undone. And some of those driving it are on public record as stating that they intend this only to be the start. And it is not simply about "recognition" in the constitution, that is the problem.

How about instead, we actually conduct some sort of inquiry and audit and demand some accountability for where the 35 billion dollars a year intended to "close the gap" is presently going?

 

[Mowman]

How about instead, we actually conduct some sort of inquiry and audit and demand some accountability for where the 35 billion dollars a year intended to "close the gap" is presently going?

This

 

[phantom13]

Listen and read beyond the simple surface phrase "the Statement from the Heart is only one page". Key members involved in creating that document, such as Thomas Mayo, have publicly stated, on camera, that they intend this to be the first step towards implementing "traditional communist values" in Australia. Read the full 126 pages behind the one-page summary of the Statement, which includes minutes from all the main consultation meetings, and every single one of them references treaties, they reference reserved seats in parliament, reserved seats in the senate, potentially a separate Indigenous parliament, hand-over of all resource rights including land, sea, water and minerals, permanent ongoing reparations via a percentage of the GDP.

If anyone thinks this is simply going to be a representative body that will do no harm, they are deluded. This differs from everything before it because it would be in the constitution, it cannot be undone. And some of those driving it are on public record as stating that they intend this only to be the start. And it is not simply about "recognition" in the constitution, that is the problem.

How about instead, we actually conduct some sort of inquiry and audit and demand some accountability for where the 35 billion dollars a year intended to "close the gap" is presently going?

ALLLLLLL of the things youre suggesting would also need to be voted on, by the minimum of parliament and almost certainly as another referendum.

At which point you can make the decision about whether thats reasonable or not.

Id suggest youre deluded if you think the voice actually leads to any of those things, regardless of the intent of it.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

Yeah, Albo's been really bad at articulating it, to be fair though it's not meant to be him selling it, he's just supporting it, people running the campaign have to sell it. It's not his job as prime minister to be running it, all he can do is say that he supports it or not and sell his reasons for doing it.

The indigenous representatives aren't much better at prosecuting their case than Albo unfortunately. There's a guy from that band AB Original, Briggs who should be the salesman for it. He's young enough and switched on enough to sell it properly and he's tough enough to stand up for it.

They need a face that makes it more of a compassion choice. At the moment most people don't give a s**t and are more irritated that they have to vote on something.

Indigenous people are still ****ed more than non indigenous people in things like education, health, incarceration rates etc. A big part is the historical s**t we did thinking that we were helping them. There is an interesting thing where the peer group your kids associate with will have more bearing on their life outcomes than parenting. Taking kids away and institutionalising them has set them back and means that a lot are coming from unstable backgrounds. If you don't know anyone that went to uni you probably won't go to uni. Most people that are opposed are either pissed off that they are not getting the same opportunity or using it as a political issue. Aboriginals in Australia are like the Gold Coast Suns in the AFL, they keep spending but until there is a tipping point they'll stay behind everyone else. This hopefully lets them choose some of their own direction.

My daughters BF had an aboriginal father. After his mother threw the father out ( for good reason ) , father wanted nothing to do with son, despite having opportunity.
He's done it hard growing up, and finding a job.
The Kid ( adult ) doesn't give a crap about the vote. He'd have liked a dad but i'm not sure that can be fixed. Maybe next generation.
Too bad about any culture he might have passed on.

 

[phantom13]

This

Id suggest pretty strongly this might be the first recommendation of the voice. Well likely never know though cause its almost certainly going to fail.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

Listen and read beyond the simple surface phrase "the Statement from the Heart is only one page". Key members involved in creating that document, such as Thomas Mayo, have publicly stated, on camera, that they intend this to be the first step towards implementing "traditional communist values" in Australia. Read the full 126 pages behind the one-page summary of the Statement, which includes minutes from all the main consultation meetings, and every single one of them references treaties, they reference reserved seats in parliament, reserved seats in the senate, potentially a separate Indigenous parliament, hand-over of all resource rights including land, sea, water and minerals, permanent ongoing reparations via a percentage of the GDP.

If anyone thinks this is simply going to be a representative body that will do no harm, they are deluded. This differs from everything before it because it would be in the constitution, it cannot be undone. And some of those driving it are on public record as stating that they intend this only to be the start. And it is not simply about "recognition" in the constitution, that is the problem.

How about instead, we actually conduct some sort of inquiry and audit and demand some accountability for where the 35 billion dollars a year intended to "close the gap" is presently going?

Playing devils advocate, do those comprising the voice even need to be indigenous.
Does anything stop the government from saying, " here is my mate Giovanni, he's going to be the voice and represent aboriginals "?

 

[CursingFijian]

But its not a debate for a different time, a lot of people would like to know this stuff before they decide how to vote. Thats not a bad thing that people want info before we change the constitution and it doesn't make them a racist if they are thinking about voting no

Back to original comment this has been very badly implemented by the Govenment

But it quite simply is Mowman.

I honestly, truly don't know what you are fearful of. Surely, it can't be the advice that Parliament will get, because Parliament already has many voices advising it on how to proceed around issues that affect Aboriginal and Torres Straight Islanders. Genuine question, do you really believe that this is some sort of subterfuge to undermine your rights and channel power to some special interest group?

 

[George]

But it quite simply is Mowman.

I honestly, truly don't know what you are fearful of. Surely, it can't be the advice that Parliament will get, because Parliament already has many voices advising it on how to proceed around issues that affect Aboriginal and Torres Straight Islanders. Genuine question, do you really believe that this is some sort of subterfuge to undermine your rights and channel power to some special interest group?

I think it's simple, I think Mowman would like to be adequately informed before he makes decisions.

 

[pebblesofsand]

There is simply nothing to be concerned about regarding the "Voice" and the proposal that is being put to the Australian people - voting against it is either the result of misunderstanding or ignorance of the proposal.

It is nothing more than formalising the process by which similar bodies (that have existed in various forms for nearly 60 years since Harold Holt established the Council for Aboriginal Affairs in 1967) provide advise to govt on issues of relevance to the aboriginal community.

Didn't worry people then - why should it worry people now?

When discussing this with friends who raise concerns about the "Voice", I ask them did you have issues with with the variety of advisory bodies which have provided a "voice" to govt regarding aboriginal issues ?

The biggest difference between the Voice and the bodies that precedes it is straight forward - it will not be subject to the whims of the governing party of the of the day and will provide advice not just to party in power, but the parliament as a whole

The proposed amendment

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. The 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.

 

[True Believer]

ALLLLLLL of the things youre suggesting would also need to be voted on, by the minimum of parliament and almost certainly as another referendum.

At which point you can make the decision about whether thats reasonable or not.

Id suggest youre deluded if you think the voice actually leads to any of those things, regardless of the intent of it.

That is naive and uninformed. No-way known it will result in further referendums. Our Prime Minister has already publicly stated he intends to implement the Uluru Statement in full - Voice, Treaty, truth-telling. Everything outlined can be covered off as part of a treaty.

People such as Thomas Mayo (amongst others) are on public record via those 126 pages of intending to use the constitution to force their will upon non-indigenous Australia. They intend for "the Voice" to be that mechanism.

I don't care if your politics is left or right, and I have voted both ways previously, but the current version of Labor in this country is currently at the behest of the hard left, and much like the feminist movement of the recent past, they intend to use the Voice as a Trojan horse for their ideology. The welfare and outcomes for indigenous populations in remote settlements is well down their list of concerns.........

 

[phantom13]

That is naive and uninformed. No-way known it will result in further referendums. Our Prime Minister has already publicly stated he intends to implement the Uluru Statement in full - Voice, Treaty, truth-telling. Everything outlined can be covered off as part of a treaty.

People such as Thomas Mayo (amongst others) are on public record via those 126 pages of intending to use the constitution to force their will upon non-indigenous Australia. They intend for "the Voice" to be that mechanism.

I don't care if your politics is left or right, and I have voted both ways previously, but the current version of Labor in this country is currently at the behest of the hard left, and much like the feminist movement of the recent past, they intend to use the Voice as a Trojan horse for their ideology. The welfare and outcomes for indigenous populations in remote settlements is well down their list of concerns.........

I stated that the No voters generally boiled down to garden variety racism or cookers... Labour is the hard left definitely falls into that catagorey.

 

[gringo2011]

To me this is the crux of the whole debate. If the yes campaign was so clear and so compelling, there would be very little the no campaign could put forward to dissuade people from voting yes. Instead we have a divided nation.

I disagree, you only need to divide on left and right and it's a shit show. It wouldn't matter what the issue was at that point. Division and muddying the water is the easiest thing you can do now with socials. Throw some burly in the water and watch it all heave. Divisive politics is ideal for distracting everyone while corporations pillage everyone. If we stopped fighting each other we'd notice the shit they get away with. The supermarkets, petrol and gas, Qantas, banks are all making super profits out of gouging the public. They are causing the cost of living to go up and inflation to rise and they help us by putting up interest rates so we don't spend as much. The voice was a timely distraction. Hopefully once they've ripped all the Covid stimulus money back into their pockets they'll ease up a bit.

 

[True Believer]

Playing devils advocate, do those comprising the voice even need to be indigenous.
Does anything stop the government from saying, " here is my mate Giovanni, he's going to be the voice and represent aboriginals "?

No, and interestingly those most disadvantaged seem to be 100% or vast majority indigenous heritage, and living in remote communities, whilst those with the loudest voices for the yes campaign, seem to be predominantly a VERY minor amount of indigenous heritage, with a VAST majority (upwards of 95% in a lot of cases) non-indigenous heritage - which they strangely never reference, and living comfortable metropolitan lives.

 

[True Believer]

I stated that the No voters generally boiled down to garden variety racism or cookers... Labour is the hard left definitely falls into that catagorey.

Did you fail comprehension at school? I did not state that Labor is the hard left! I said that currently Labor is at the behest of the hard left - that is fact! Albanese is the PM and is of the Socialist left faction. Stop throwing labels around and read the content.
Read the background material and it is obvious that the people driving the voice have no intentions of creating a nice little chat group that throws the occasional suggestion to parliament and then wanders off for a cuppa! It is a publicly stated aim to weaponise the constitution of this country to achieve their aims!!

 

[jwikked]

My default stance on any referendum is “no”, it’s up to the government to explain why voting in favor is a good thing, Governments have shown countless times why they can’t be trusted on their word.

They haven’t done that. It took them far too long to get any information out.

Also I don’t believe it will change anything. It doesn’t need to be in the constitution, Aboriginals are Australian. They have far more representation to all levels of government compared to the rest of society. Name one politician who doesn’t have an indigenous advisor on their staff.

For all the time and money spent on this worthless exercise, something tangible could have been achieved. Dunno what that is, though, but just like the Government saying “sorry” all those years ago - this won’t change anything. Even if the referendum does pass.

 

[gringo2011]

That is naive and uninformed. No-way known it will result in further referendums. Our Prime Minister has already publicly stated he intends to implement the Uluru Statement in full - Voice, Treaty, truth-telling. Everything outlined can be covered off as part of a treaty.

People such as Thomas Mayo (amongst others) are on public record via those 126 pages of intending to use the constitution to force their will upon non-indigenous Australia. They intend for "the Voice" to be that mechanism.

I don't care if your politics is left or right, and I have voted both ways previously, but the current version of Labor in this country is currently at the behest of the hard left, and much like the feminist movement of the recent past, they intend to use the Voice as a Trojan horse for their ideology. The welfare and outcomes for indigenous populations in remote settlements is well down their list of concerns.........

Jesus if you think Labor are hard left you have no idea. They are as middle of the road as it comes. The Scandies are more true centrists and we sit on the right of them. Most Australian governments that last are middlers. If you stray too far either way you get voted out. Scomo flirted with moving out of the centre and it didn't work. The current fear of communism is a weird one. Even the communists aren't communist any more. They are capitalist with non elected governments.


Treaty is inevitable. Most other countries with indigenous cultures have some form of treaty. It's preferable legally and gives certainty. While it's un-ceded there is always grey area in the law around ownership. At some point we will end up having to sign up to one. This body could potentially negotiate one on their behalf and the hardcore indigenous rights campaigners think that that could be a way to get ripped off in the deal.

Realistically the treaties are going to have to be signed by smaller groups. You'd never get everyone on the same page. Even in Victoria there are a lot of different groups who would have very different ideas of what it should look like. Canada and the US have lots of treaties with individual tribes, not a single one like NZ has.

 

[phantom13]

Did you fail comprehension at school? I did not state that Labor is the hard left! I said that currently Labor is at the behest of the hard left - that is fact! Albanese is the PM and is of the Socialist left faction. Stop throwing labels around and read the content.
Read the background material and it is obvious that the people driving the voice have no intentions of creating a nice little chat group that throws the occasional suggestion to parliament and then wanders off for a cuppa! It is a publicly stated aim to weaponise the constitution of this country to achieve their aims!!

“Comprehension” wasn’t a subject, elective or otherwise when I was at school so not even sure how you’d fail it.

In any event, you can carry on without me, what your positing is completely absurd (we’re gonna have an Indigenous Parliament who will have complete autonomy over all national resources) and difference of opinion aside the conversation was productive and respectful until you barged in like a hyped up 4th grader who just read a sex ed book and wants to explain it to his mates.

 

[phantom13]

Jesus if you think Labor are hard left you have no idea. They are as middle of the road as it comes. The Scandies are more true centrists and we sit on the right of them. Most Australian governments that last are middlers. If you stray too far either way you get voted out. Scomo flirted with moving out of the centre and it didn't work. The current fear of communism is a weird one. Even the communists aren't communist any more. They are capitalist with non elected governments.


Treaty is inevitable. Most other countries with indigenous cultures have some form of treaty. It's preferable legally and gives certainty. While it's un-ceded there is always grey area in the law around ownership. At some point we will end up having to sign up to one. This body could potentially negotiate one on their behalf and the hardcore indigenous rights campaigners think that that could be a way to get ripped off in the deal.

Realistically the treaties are going to have to be signed by smaller groups. You'd never get everyone on the same page. Even in Victoria there are a lot of different groups who would have very different ideas of what it should look like. Canada and the US have lots of treaties with individual tribes, not a single one like NZ has.

I assume you also failed comprehension. That wouldn’t shock me tbh.

 

[George]

the conversation was productive and respectful until you barged in like a hyped up 4th grader who just read a sex ed book and wants to explain it to his mates.

 

[Mowman]

But it quite simply is Mowman.

I honestly, truly don't know what you are fearful of. Surely, it can't be the advice that Parliament will get, because Parliament already has many voices advising it on how to proceed around issues that affect Aboriginal and Torres Straight Islanders. Genuine question, do you really believe that this is some sort of subterfuge to undermine your rights and channel power to some special interest group

I think i have been pretty clear on the issues i see with it. I want all the info and want something that will bring real change

But to many people it quite simply isn't

But apparently if you're think of voting anything but yes
You're racist
You want the status quo to remain
or you have a tin hat on


I don't think I have suggested anything that would make you ask that question