"I for one welcome our insect overlords" - The Politics Thread

[JoyfulPenguin]

'No' to all questions except for the feeling like an outsider question, and obviously being white is easier than being black.
Unfortunately this questionnaire fails to identify the causes of the social breakdown in indigenous communities let alone propose solutions.

The Uluru Statement from the Heart, which is what the Voice is, was agreed to by over 80% of First Nations people after consultation lasting decades.

First Nations elders and people argued and agreed that the Voice is the solution.

 

[JoyfulPenguin]

Its been a while since I read it, and as you say it wasnt a long read. One thing that surprised me was that NZ is still eligible to become a state of Australia-weird

Yeah it is strange read today. Apparently up until the last minute NZ were going to be a state, then opted out.

 

[Roger the Cabin Boy]

The Uluru Statement from the Heart, which is what the Voice is, was agreed to by over 80% of First Nations people after consultation lasting decades.

First Nations elders and people argued and agreed that the Voice is the solution.

My point was that the 'experiment' questionnaire is superficial and itself recognises antisocial behaviour as a symptom. No argument here.

 

[Allreet?]

'No' to all questions except for the feeling like an outsider question, and obviously being white is easier than being black.
Unfortunately this questionnaire fails to identify the causes of the social breakdown in indigenous communities let alone propose solutions.

The causes of social breakdown in indigenous communities are either extraordinarily complex or pretty simple, depending on how you look at it.

Aborigines lived a certain way for 60,000 years and then 235 years ago were forced to change. Further, they were kicked off their land and (all but) exterminated in places, and have never been accepted or respected by many parts of the white community - especially the rural community who (to be fair) tend to be the ones most confronted with the social breakdown.

We've tried all sorts of piecemeal solutions including throwing money at the problem and none have worked because it's always papering over the vast cracks. The Voice is a chance to start deep and true reconnection but we're going to f**k it up.

 

[Roger the Cabin Boy]

Wouldn't get too fixated. ...... The amendment is still a living document and as such can be molded further. And likely will.

This is exactly what worries me.

 

[Insertnamehere]

This is exactly what worries me.

That is until it is carried through parliament. Not once its in the constitution.

 

[pjennings]

This is exactly what worries me.

The amendment is not a living document. The format of the voice is. Dutton was originally going to give a conscience vote (or that was agreed in the party room). He then came out and gave a press conference that they were against it and will vote as a block.

A conscience vote would have allowed to detail to be agreed by all parties. It may be smart politics but it is a bastard act - even to those in his own party.

 

[Allreet?]

I suspect Dutton is just trying to keep the coalition together. The Nationals said they were dead against the Voice so Dutton feared further antagonising his partners and potentially splitting his own party - which he might still do. I think history will condemn him if the No vote gets up.

I think history might also condemn Albo for his pathetic support of the Yes vote.

 

[FFC Mariner]

This is exactly what worries me.

Why? How can it harm you if it gets up?

 

[pjennings]

For those wanting detail in the change to the constitution the simple question is what detail is there in the constitution about how we defend Australia. Defence is mentioned in the Constitution but there are no details of strength force or troop deployment. The Constitution is not the appropriate place for the detail on either. If a conscience vote had been allowed by Dutton the detail could have been worked out before the referendum (though not enacted). His decision to not allow a conscience vote (despite what he said in the party room) has meant detail is impossible to provide which makes his claims for more detail even more disingenuous.

The detail will be decided by the Parliament, through both houses, that is clear in the change itself.

The new chapter and section to be added to the constitution are:

Chapter IX Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples

S 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.

 

[Roger the Cabin Boy]

Why? How can it harm you if it gets up?

The suggestion was that the amendment to the Constitution could morph into something unforseen.

 

[Allreet?]

The suggestion was that the amendment to the Constitution could morph into something unforseen.

It can't.

Not without another referendum.

 

[Big Al]

If the voice was that crucial why not implement it any way. Why waste so much money and time on this piece of paper?
A simplistic idea is being politicised heavily by Albo. He wants the credit for it in history but I don’t think he actually knows what to do and how to help. People are seeing through this. If it’s so right why do we all need convincing.

If Albo actually cared about Aboriginal issues he would have the voice group up and running already. And the amendment would just be a finalisation of the process not the beginning.

Simplistically part 1 of the Uluru statement (the voice) is very easy to understand and a few lines in the constitution don’t really worry to many.

Where the issue lies is the rest of the Uluru statement and what that means. Albo can’t or doesn’t want to get involved in that argument and that is going to be the downfall because words like trust and faith from a politician are not going to be successful. We are a lot more intelligent society than that.

The issues over in WA were certainly bad timing for those who see this as leading to more.

It’s quite clear he has limited political policies and is trying to go for a socialist policy and is spending way to much time on it for many peoples likes. Especially in difficult economic times. Many consider those issues more important. If he tackled both then he might have a better chance but people are seeing him as full of hot air.

The train station was packed with yes campaigners this morning. The press is on.

Interesting times ahead and i am enjoying every bodies thoughts without getting nasty.

 

[Allreet?]

I agree Albo has buggered this up, but exactly how is he going for a socialist policy?

 

[pjennings]

If the voice was that crucial why not implement it any way. Why waste so much money and time on this piece of paper?
A simplistic idea is being politicised heavily by Albo. He wants the credit for it in history but I don’t think he actually knows what to do and how to help. People are seeing through this. If it’s so right why do we all need convincing.

If Albo actually cared about Aboriginal issues he would have the voice group up and running already. And the amendment would just be a finalisation of the process not the beginning.

Simplistically part 1 of the Uluru statement (the voice) is very easy to understand and a few lines in the constitution don’t really worry to many.

Where the issue lies is the rest of the Uluru statement and what that means. Albo can’t or doesn’t want to get involved in that argument and that is going to be the downfall because words like trust and faith from a politician are not going to be successful. We are a lot more intelligent society than that.

The issues over in WA were certainly bad timing for those who see this as leading to more.

It’s quite clear he has limited political policies and is trying to go for a socialist policy and is spending way to much time on it for many peoples likes. Especially in difficult economic times. Many consider those issues more important. If he tackled both then he might have a better chance but people are seeing him as full of hot air.

The train station was packed with yes campaigners this morning. The press is on.

Interesting times ahead and i am enjoying every bodies thoughts without getting nasty.

And that is the only part that is being discussed. As for truth telling and treaty - they are un-related and purely a red herring by the No campaign. If there is to be 'treaty' it will be done at a lot lower level as there is no 'Aboriginal Nation'. There are hundreds of First Nations groups that occupy/occupied different areas. Any treaty would be with these groups - probably at a LGA level.

As for truth-telling look at the 'disbursement of the Aborigines' by the Downer family. Or the PNG plantation interests of a certain Earlwood petrol station owner as he dummied for W.R Carpenter and Company Ltd. where slavery like conditions were used in what was then an Australian protectorate) and how his suburban suburban solicitor son had to represent him in front of the High Court while the forerunner of ASIO investigated the dubious actions. With big backers like Carpenters and Burns Philp of course it disappeared.

Is this the truth telling that the No case don't want aired.

 

[JoyfulPenguin]

I think Albo's biggest mistake was announcing it was happening as soon as he won the election.

It meant the campaign for the referendum started then, not yesterday.

He then refused to actually campaign or really talk about it till now. It meant the No campaign got a head start and eagely filled in the gaps in people's knowledge with doubt and uncertainty.

He showed his political age and a lack of understanding in how politics works in the digital age.

 

[Roger the Cabin Boy]

It can't.

Not without another referendum.

There can be unforseen outcomes as a result of High Court rulings.
There was a push a few months ago to change the wording to minimise such risks but the authors pushed back and Albo didnt have the nerve to insist on the changes

 

[JoyfulPenguin]

There can be unforseen outcomes as a result of High Court rulings.
There was a push a few months ago to change the wording to minimise such risks but the authors pushed back and Albo didnt have the nerve to insist on the changes

The Referendum Working Group specifically made it so it couldn't and have stressed it is not justiciable (can't be ruled on by judges).

Even your most activist judge can't get around that.

 

[Capn Gus Bloodbeard]

Just as a note - generally speaking, "Aborigines" is considered a derogatory term. It harks back to the old racist legislation and policies. Appointments to the 'protection of aborigines' and permits for 'aborigines' to work etc. I know a couple of letters doesn't seem like it changes much, but it does.

And I know nobody on here has intended any negative connotations from usage of that term, so I'm certainly not accusing anybody.

Aboriginal (always capitalised) peoples is better. That or First Nations Peoples......which is preferred depends on who you ask, but you can't really go wrong with either.

And to be getting into more detail, if anybody is interested, those are generally preferred over Indigenous, though that's not as big a deal as Aborigine). Indigenous kind of tends to fit more into academic writings, I think.....ATSI is also outdated (I think that's also a rejection as that was the government acronym for a long time, still during times when we weren't really listened to) - always use the full wording if you want to use those words. Writing online and just want an acronym? I'd say FNP is probably the better on.

If the voice was that crucial why not implement it any way. Why waste so much money and time on this piece of paper?
A simplistic idea is being politicised heavily by Albo.

Because that's what the Uluru Statement from the Heart called for - and as such, that was Albo's election promise.

Looks like a good, and civil, discussion being had on here - I'll have to make time to read through responses over the next couples of days.

 

[JoyfulPenguin]

Has been a very good and civil discussion, frankly better than some I have have had at Uni.

I may disagree but it's great to see people engaged and caring about our Constitution outside a lecture theatre.

Credit to you guys.