Indigenous Voice Yes or No?

[Sintiger]

This is true, but Lidia Thorpe's radicalism also makes the Voice look like a moderate proposal, which it is, but this makes it obvious

I don’t know about that David, that view assumes the general public are well informed. I think many just see an angry radical indigenous person and that scares them off.

 

[Baloo]

If she comes out and supports a No vote, she'll be walking in Phil Cleary's footsteps.

Now that she's using the Sovereign tag, she's going to confuse her objectives with the much ridiculed Cookers.

Not sure what the best outcome here is other than I hope she doesn't fracture or scare off potential Yes voters who rely soley on News Ltd or Fairfax for their information. Or worse, Facebook.

 

[eZyT]

Jeepers, reading this thread and some of the media narrative, if the referndum from 1967 was undertaken now then I suspect it would be a No outcome.

Nah look at the data JB,

68% Yes for The Voice on PRE poll, which coincides with latest Essential poll of 1000 that say 65%

Significantly, the Essential poll says the younger the cohort, the higher the Yes, to 85% in millenials.

I think PRE poll reflects this too; id suggest the majority of our respondents are Baby Boomers and Gen X.

The yes campaign is rightly keeping its powder dry - the vote is 6 months away - by which time NO will have deteriorated further, into a circus putting on a special show at the asylum.

in '67, you would have only heard the 10% in a taxi in Broken Hill, around a pool table at the Lightening Ridge pub, or maybe if you had an old racist uncle who had been kicked in the head by a horse, at a family BBQ.

www hands everyone a global amplifier

And there is a correlation between ignorance and hate, and volume

But yeah i agree it would be more than 10% vote against indigenous Australians becoming citizens if held today

Youde have the power-hungry Jacinta Price prosecuting the case that 'ive done ok as fauna, so other blacks should too',

and the cynical green narcissist vote thief Thorpe arguing 'we'd rather be fauna than be citizens of an illusory Nation'

I reckon it would be 82% yes.

 

[eZyT]

On Thorpe,

1. Id like to see data on how many vote above the line . It wouldnt be many voted her for the senate. People voted for a Green in the senate. I dont think it democratic she quits and retains her senate seat - quitting a party is different to crossing the floor on an issue, and should trigger a senate bi-election imo.

2. The optimist in me says she might be the Lefts Pauline Hanson - dragging the debate to the extremities and creating a new moderate? 'We better get this Voice so nutbags like Thorpe dont kick us off the farm.'

3. Spare a thought for the creators of The Uluru Statement. They conducted an exhaustive, inclusive, consensus process, agreed on a 1-2-3 sequence of positive change explicit and they have a rare window of opportunity with a Govt wholly committed to the sequence, and Thorpe's jumping around going 'we dont want 1, we want 2,3 and 4'

 

[Sintiger]

Yep, and she's quit the Greens to be a leader in the black sovereignty movement. Is that similar to the so called sovereign citizens, just coming at it from a different angle?

I don't really understand the sovereignty issue, not sure what it means

Mick Dodson talks about what he sees as required

In February 2012, barrister and 2009 Australian of the Year, Mick Dodson AM FASSA, addressed Parliament on the subject of "Constitutional Recognition of Indigenous Australians". He raised three issues: an acknowledgement in the Constitution that the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples were in Australia first and also in possession of the country, when the British Crown asserted its sovereignty over the whole continent, and it follows that the land was taken without consent; the second was about issues of Aboriginal identity being respected and protected within the Constitution and Australian law; and the third element related to equal citizenship under law.[14]

I assume what this movement is looking for is something like the above but I don't see that the Voice to parliament means none of this can happen, which is what Lidia Thorpe is alluding to.

Edit- Equally I don't see how the Voice means any of this will happen which seems to be the concerns of some

 

[eZyT]

I assume what this movement is looking for is something like the above but I don't see that the Voice to parliament means none of this can happen, which is what Lidia Thorpe is alluding to.

Edit- Equally I don't see how the Voice means any of this will happen which seems to be the concerns of some

1. Thorpe is arguing its an either/or: the money or the box. Which it isnt. The PM has said it isnt, high court judges have said it isnt, Uluru Statement spokespeople have said it isnt. Thorpe is propogating a falsehood designed to conflate and confuse. At best, shes bravely fulfilling a bad-cop role (with the pay-off a skyrocketting personal profile), at worst shes a treacherous wrecker, willing to consign indigenous australia to a powerless pergatory for several more generations, in order to gain personal power.

2. The Voice comes first; Treaty comes second; reconciliation (using the post apartheid truth and reconciliation process as the model) comes third.
If indigenous opponents like Thorpe and Price cant see that this process will advance the plight of indigenous Australia, then they are either 1. Thick, 2. Corrupt and/or 3. Placing their own Power above indigenous advancement.

None of these are new narratives in politics

 

[Wildride]

On Thorpe,

1. Id like to see data on how many vote above the line . It wouldnt be many voted her for the senate. People voted for a Green in the senate. I dont think it democratic she quits and retains her senate seat - quitting a party is different to crossing the floor on an issue, and should trigger a senate bi-election imo.

Apparently it was about 45000 votes above the line out of the 550,000 or so votes for her place in the ticket (which was a bit less than 1 quota)

 

[eZyT]

Apparently it was about 45000 votes above the line out of the 550,000 or so votes for her place in the ticket (which was a bit less than 1 quota)

It would seem logical and democratic to me,

That if the majority of votes are for the ticket and not the person,

And the senator abandons the ticket,

They relinquish the seat and make way for no.2 on the ticket?

Im sure theres democratic/beauracratic nuance and precedent im missing? But at face value, it seems a cynical betrayal of the voting public, in particular when the senator is taking a counter position to the vast majority of voters who put them there?

 

[eZyT]

Very Important Edit!

This link is a curriculum resource on Uluru Statement put out by The Australian Museum (i.e trustworthy, impartial, source we can rely on being factual)

Defining Moments | Australia’s Defining Moments Digital Classroom | National Museum of Australia

Learn about the events, people and ideas that have shaped and defined Australia.

digital-classroom.nma.gov.au

Its a good simple explainer

The important thing i learned (correct me if im
Wrong)

Is Thorpe's case, while definately conflated, is informed by the majority of informants to The Uluru Statement.

This passages relating to Thorpes position, in the document say

1. The Uluru statement was informed by 13 Dialogues (regional consultations) - 1200 attended, 200,000 submitted) - i.e an exhaustive consultation of predominately, but not exclusively, indigenous people across all regions of australia

2. The 13 dialogues supported The Voice, but

3. The 13 dialogues REJECTED the notion of constitutional recognition, citing that it would be a motherhood statement that implied indigenous people have accepted a loss of sovereignty over their land.

It appears to me that Thorpes position on Constitution recognition IS informed by the majority of indigenous people, and on this, i was misinformed.

Sorry Lydia.

While opposing The Voice, she is taking a contrary position to the majority of Indigenous people,

the referendum will only ask one question i understand

'Do you support constitution recognition AND a voice to parliament?'

By which, i suspect Thorpe does have has a basis to take a NO position, however poorly she is articulating and promoting the position.

Now i am having a significant existential crisis, because i have just written a monologue for Andrew Bolt.

Please Help.

 

[ceehook2]

in this thread there has been the question asked , probably rhetorical , "dont we have a minister for Indigenous Affairs ?"
Not really sure the division of duties but these pollies are listed in order as the head of National Indigenous Australians Agency
have some part in the administration of Indigenous Affairs

I'll poke around and see if there is a summary of The Voice








people wanting know more or complain or make comment to the officials involved see the links below

More information and contacts​

Visit Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice

Learn more about the Uluru Statement from the Heart

Public email: [email protected]

Taskforce email: [email protected]

 

[bengal tigers]

Worth a try. On the other hand we could all do nothing and . . . nothing will change.

Plus, the Uluru gathering said they want a Voice, I respect their request and will support it.

It should always be remembered that this should be a first step, more to come later.

DS

According to statistics ,the indigenous population represents about 2-3 percent of Australia's population.
Again according to stats ,the child abuse rate among indigenous people is 4 times higher than the rest of the population 97- 98 percent.
Domestic violence is also higher .
So what l want to hear from all the voice supporters ,is how these very serious problems are going to be fixed.

We hear about all the pedophile priests and teachers in the mainstream media,yet we hardly hear about all the abuse indigenous children, some as young as 3 are getting.
This is not new problem that has just happened ,it's been going on for decades ,and all governments know about it ,yet none are prepared to take a hard line approach .
This sort of animal behavior should not be happening in any society .it's needs to be stopped .

 

[eZyT]

Again according to stats ,the child abuse rate among indigenous people is 4 times higher than the rest of the population 97- 98 percent.

For that data to be attributed to race,

Youde need to control for socio-economics.

Compare rates of child abuse between black and white populations living in remote 3rd world conditions with intergenerational trauma and dysfunction and the associated substance abuse and lack of hope.

I think youde find the disparity tightens up significantly

Its not that hard to understand how to interpret data objectively -its the basic fairness test that gets taught in year 5-6 in most state curriculae.

The 'black people are paedophiles who cut off womens heads' notion

Is a deeply offensive, absurdly simplistic, and acutely harmful re-write of the savage cannibal myth

But we agree paedophilia is abhorrent and needs to be dealt with harshly, ideally to prevent and protect

 

[bengal tigers]

For that data to be attributed to race,

Youde need to control for socio-economics.

Compare rates of child abuse between black and white populations living in remote 3rd world conditions with intergenerational trauma and dysfunction and the associated substance abuse and lack of hope.

I think youde find the disparity tightens up significantly

Its not that hard to understand how to interpret data objectively -its the basic fairness test that gets taught in year 5-6 in most state curriculae.

The 'black people are paedophiles who cut off womens heads' notion

Is a deeply offensive, absurdly simplistic, and acutely harmful re-write of the savage cannibal myth

But we agree paedophilia is abhorrent and needs to be dealt with harshly, ideally to prevent and protect

It's pretty easy to get data in Australia for child abuse ,all they have to do is get the stats from the police in all states /territories Hospital etc ,and put them together.
Same for reported domestic violence.

I gather your not a very opened minded person,because child abuse is child abuse no matter were you live ,and will never be accepted .

Indigenous leaders not affiliated with any political party ,have been talking about these problems for year's ,it's a vicious cycle that doesn't get broken,it get's forgotten .
You have bagged Jacinta Price ,but she was complaining about the indigenous problems way before the Voice was even mentioned ,and there have been other indigenous people before her who have spoken out.

BTW don't try and play the racist card with me EZY ,facts are facts ,there are serious issues happening that shouldn't be.

I have seen or heard nothing about how the VOICE will fix any of the issues ,in fact l haven't seen or heard how the Voice will fix any indigenous issue.

 

[eZyT]

It's pretty easy to get data in Australia for child abuse ,all they have to do is get the stats from the police in all states /territories Hospital etc ,and put them together.
Same for reported domestic violence.

I gather your not a very opened minded person,because child abuse is child abuse no matter were you live ,and will never be accepted .

Indigenous leaders not affiliated with any political party ,have been talking about these problems for year's ,it's a vicious cycle that doesn't get broken,it get's forgotten .
You have bagged Jacinta Price ,but she was complaining about the indigenous problems way before the Voice was even mentioned ,and there have been other indigenous people before her who have spoken out.

BTW don't try and play the racist card with me EZY ,facts are facts ,there are serious issues happening that shouldn't be.

I have seen or heard nothing about how the VOICE will fix any of the issues ,in fact l haven't seen or heard how the Voice will fix any indigenous issue.

This dialogue is utterly pointless.

I wont read anything more you write, and i suggest you do the same.

With respect to The Racist Card,

I believe you're playing solitairre and dealt yourself,

As is mostly the case.

Go tigers

 

[larabee]

Very Important Edit!

This link is a curriculum resource on Uluru Statement put out by The Australian Museum (i.e trustworthy, impartial, source we can rely on being factual)

Defining Moments | Australia’s Defining Moments Digital Classroom | National Museum of Australia

Learn about the events, people and ideas that have shaped and defined Australia.

digital-classroom.nma.gov.au

Its a good simple explainer

The important thing i learned (correct me if im
Wrong)

Is Thorpe's case, while definately conflated, is informed by the majority of informants to The Uluru Statement.

This passages relating to Thorpes position, in the document say

1. The Uluru statement was informed by 13 Dialogues (regional consultations) - 1200 attended, 200,000 submitted) - i.e an exhaustive consultation of predominately, but not exclusively, indigenous people across all regions of australia

2. The 13 dialogues supported The Voice, but

3. The 13 dialogues REJECTED the notion of constitutional recognition, citing that it would be a motherhood statement that implied indigenous people have accepted a loss of sovereignty over their land.

It appears to me that Thorpes position on Constitution recognition IS informed by the majority of indigenous people, and on this, i was misinformed.

Sorry Lydia.

While opposing The Voice, she is taking a contrary position to the majority of Indigenous people,

the referendum will only ask one question i understand

'Do you support constitution recognition AND a voice to parliament?'

By which, i suspect Thorpe does have has a basis to take a NO position, however poorly she is articulating and promoting the position.

Now i am having a significant existential crisis, because i have just written a monologue for Andrew Bolt.

Please Help.

I thought the issue of the loss of sovereignty had been dealt with, in that the ALP and constitutional experts have made it clear that the Voice would not affect First Nations sovereignty.
With my basic understand I would have thought that the sovereignty issue would be more relevant in the Treaty discussions?

Thorpe did mention yesterday that she hadn’t ruled out voting yes to the voice, but sovereignty seems to be the sticking point. Or else she’s using it as a red herring while trying to get the Treaty sorted out first.

Article in the Guardian gives a good explanation:

Why a voice to parliament won’t affect First Nations sovereignty as Lidia Thorpe fears | Indigenous voice to parliament | The Guardian

The senator is demanding Labor ‘be clear about our sovereignty’. Experts explain why the two issues are entirely separate

amp.theguardian.com

 

[eZyT]

I thought the issue of the loss of sovereignty had been dealt with, in that the ALP and constitutional experts have made it clear that the Voice would not affect First Nations sovereignty.
With my basic understand I would have thought that the sovereignty issue would be more relevant in the Treaty discussions?

Thorpe did mention yesterday that she hadn’t ruled out voting yes to the voice, but sovereignty seems to be the sticking point. Or else she’s using it as a red herring while trying to get the Treaty sorted out first.

Article in the Guardian gives a good explanation:

Why a voice to parliament won’t affect First Nations sovereignty as Lidia Thorpe fears | Indigenous voice to parliament | The Guardian

The senator is demanding Labor ‘be clear about our sovereignty’. Experts explain why the two issues are entirely separate

amp.theguardian.com

Thanks - it is confusing.

Reading the Guardian article confirms what i just now suspected maybe happening

Theres differing persectives of sovereignty

The legal defination (simplistically white) and a more philosophical/moral/spiritual definition (simplistically black)

Of course that was bound to happen when law and lore go head to head? Its not Black and White

Legally, sovereignty was taken by Britain, though it was never ceded by the indigenous inhabitants, nor their descendents

The black fellas who voted against constitution recognition in the exhaustive Uluru process, citing the concern that they maybe conceeding sovereignty

Are arguing about the STATUS of the sovereignty

Taken v Given

The legal statusof sovereignty, as all the constitutional and legal experts point out,

Doesnt change.

But if the indigenous perspective of sovereignty (lore?) does change, then thats important, isnt it?

It very complex, thanks for the link, im better for it.

While im still not a fan of Thorpe, i understand and respect her stance better than i did this morning.

But i agree with you, treaty is more relevant to sovereignty, and the USfH (im sick of writing Uluru Stayement from the Heart) spelt out very cleArly the sequence

1. Voice
2. Treaty
3. Reconciliation (truth telling)

I feel like theres a pretty simple fix here?

Unhitch the constitutional recognition from The Voice,

And throw it in the Treaty basket.

The referendum question then becomes

Do you support an indigenous Voice to parliament?

Yes or No.

 

[DavidSSS]

According to statistics ,the indigenous population represents about 2-3 percent of Australia's population.
Again according to stats ,the child abuse rate among indigenous people is 4 times higher than the rest of the population 97- 98 percent.
Domestic violence is also higher .
So what l want to hear from all the voice supporters ,is how these very serious problems are going to be fixed.

We hear about all the pedophile priests and teachers in the mainstream media,yet we hardly hear about all the abuse indigenous children, some as young as 3 are getting.
This is not new problem that has just happened ,it's been going on for decades ,and all governments know about it ,yet none are prepared to take a hard line approach .
This sort of animal behavior should not be happening in any society .it's needs to be stopped .

I don't know how to fix the problems.

But I do know 1 thing, they are not getting fixed at the moment.

Yes, lots of people have been speaking out about child abuse and various other issues Indigenous Australians face.

But they aren't being listened to.

Gee, maybe we should listen.

I know, how about we enshrine in the Constitution a forum for Indigenous Australians to put their point of view. It would be in the constitution so harder to ignore.

On the other hand we could continue the way we have been going and continue to ignore Indigenous points of view.

There is no guarantee that the Voice will make a difference, but voting it down and continuing what we have done for a couple of hundred years is virtually guaranteed to do nothing to fix the problems.

DS

 

[Brodders17]

So what l want to hear from all the voice supporters ,is how these very serious problems are going to be fixed.

One thing at least this referendum is doing is making people suddenly care about an issue that has been a serious problem for a long time. and mostly ignored for the same amount of time.

Indigenous Australians face disadvantage in education, health, employment, disability, justice and yes, violence and abuse. None of these will be fixed without improvement in all areas. And leaving things the way they are certainly isnt leading to improvements.
We have tried the "heavy handed" approach with the intervention- it achieved little. Clearly reverting back to a freer reign with alcohol certainly hasnt helped.

One thing we havent tried is giving Indigenous Australians a real "voice" in how to start fixing the may issues their communities face.

There wont be a quick fix, intergenerational trauma is real, and the evidence is clear that kids who are abused are more likely to then abuse in adulthood, and experience issues with drugs and alcohol. But surely giving those who are most affected by these issues, those who live surrounded by these issues, a real say in the response can only be a good thing.

 

[Baloo]

Not sure if this has been posted before but it's a handy summary of what the Voice actually is. Obviously Murdoch Press haven't found this link yet.

FAQs - Uluru Statement from the Heart

ulurustatement.org

 

[MD Jazz]

One thing at least this referendum is doing is making people suddenly care about an issue that has been a serious problem for a long time. and mostly ignored for the same amount of time.

Indigenous Australians face disadvantage in education, health, employment, disability, justice and yes, violence and abuse. None of these will be fixed without improvement in all areas. And leaving things the way they are certainly isnt leading to improvements.
We have tried the "heavy handed" approach with the intervention- it achieved little. Clearly reverting back to a freer reign with alcohol certainly hasnt helped.

One thing we havent tried is giving Indigenous Australians a real "voice" in how to start fixing the may issues their communities face.

There wont be a quick fix, intergenerational trauma is real, and the evidence is clear that kids who are abused are more likely to then abuse in adulthood, and experience issues with drugs and alcohol. But surely giving those who are most affected by these issues, those who live surrounded by these issues, a real say in the response can only be a good thing.

Yeh, what's the risk? What scares people so much about this?

How will it change their lives, the reality is most people living in Austtralia are not directly impacted by indigenous issues. Why not try something different and empower people?