More labor madness

[wayno]

Can anyone explain if the "Voice" get's up, what the differences will be?
What the outcomes will be and better off we all will be?

We already have a number of advisory councils, the IAC, the AITSL and others employing over 1000 indigenous people. Are we just voting to see this already in place structure to be bannered under a new name?
We already pump countless of billions of dollars into the indigenous sector of our community and it is not hitting the ground where needed. I have not heard from anyone how this will change. It seems to me a lot of this is more about ideology rather then practicality. Ideology helps no body! Is all that money scooped up by corrupt office holders or misdirected for other outcomes?

Practicality is as follows:

There are at least 250 mobs (tribes) with any thing up to 7 clans within each of them. Just think, back in the 50s, we had Prodo's vs Catholics, two groups. With our indigenous citizens, we have 250 x any thing up to seven. Go figure? Regardless of how this voice is made up. it will not serve every indigenous mob or clan.

Who should we listen to:

I think the most level headed person I have heard speak on this subject is Jacinta Nampijinpa Price from Alice Springs NT. No axe to grind and just wants better out comes. She is in the middle and calls out for what it is all about. She especially called out the ALBO government for easing up on the alcohol restrictions as the major cause for the unrest in Alice. Not to mention the underfunding of Police services and so on.

My indigenous friends are sceptical of the voice as they see it as more of the same. They say, start kicking heads in the Public Service, get people out from their offices and hit the ground and talk to every mob and clan. Until that happens, nothing will happen.

Wayno

[T1 Terry]

... an indigenous voice in parliament might have had a more serious view of Rio Tinto blowing up caves that they had already been told was not to go near them .......

T1 Terry

The correct facts about that cave is that Rio had approval from the relevant Natives a couple of years before that area was slated for strip mining.
If you look at the published pictures of the damages that are said to have been done there is very little actual damage, There is a bit of damage near the entrance but the actual cave itself is still wide open.
The real trouble with that cave is that it became a political football.


Ron

Thanks for your input Ron, however there are some uninformed on the forum that are unaware of the facts and through ignorance, choose to listen to the diversions presented by the political leaders as being established truth,
Keith
[/quote]

Keith, did you even look at the link to the statement put out by Rio Tinto? If you want to climb over the nonsense being spread about what happened, a good start would be to read the statement from the company that actually did it first, then add how much polishing that would have had to start to reach the middle ground ......

T1 Terry

[T1 Terry]

Can anyone explain if the "Voice" get's up, what the differences will be?
What the outcomes will be and better off we all will be?

We already have a number of advisory councils, the IAC, the AITSL and others employing over 1000 indigenous people. Are we just voting to see this already in place structure to be bannered under a new name?
We already pump countless of billions of dollars into the indigenous sector of our community and it is not hitting the ground where needed. I have not heard from anyone how this will change. It seems to me a lot of this is more about ideology rather then practicality. Ideology helps no body! Is all that money scooped up by corrupt office holders or misdirected for other outcomes?

Practicality is as follows:

There are at least 250 mobs (tribes) with any thing up to 7 clans within each of them. Just think, back in the 50s, we had Prodo's vs Catholics, two groups. With our indigenous citizens, we have 250 x any thing up to seven. Go figure? Regardless of how this voice is made up. it will not serve every indigenous mob or clan.

Who should we listen to:

I think the most level headed person I have heard speak on this subject is Jacinta Nampijinpa Price from Alice Springs NT. No axe to grind and just wants better out comes. She is in the middle and calls out for what it is all about. She especially called out the ALBO government for easing up on the alcohol restrictions as the major cause for the unrest in Alice. Not to mention the underfunding of Police services and so on.

My indigenous friends are sceptical of the voice as they see it as more of the same. They say, start kicking heads in the Public Service, get people out from their offices and hit the ground and talk to every mob and clan. Until that happens, nothing will happen.

Wayno

To get an idea just how segregated the indigenous tribes are, check out this map https://connectionandwellbeing.com.au/s ... ribes-map/

What is the aim of an indigenous voice in the federal govt? To develop a better distribution of what money and services go where, powered by the very people who elect the representatives to speak for them as a starting point. Sure, not all of them will agree with what ever choices they make, but at least it won't be decisions made by people who really have no idea about what is actually happening because they have no history of the problems to base any decisions on ... the practice at the moment is to just throw money at where they think the problem is so they can say they have at least done something.

Let's face it, just reading through this thread says the govt can't keep everyone on the non indigenous side happy, why not let them elect their choice of who has a voice for them and then they can blame the people they chose if it doesn't turn out the way they wanted.
There is far too much money going into the problems that never actually reaches the target, why not have members of their own mobs chase down those who are doing the wrong thing, at least they can't claim it's white man attacks on the indigenous population, it would be members of the indigenous population dealing with the problems within the indigenous population .......

The major multinational companies aren't keen on the idea of the indigenous people actually having a govt strength say about what happens on their tribal grounds, that would stuff up the system they have paid big money to establish via lobbyists and political party donations and would derail the ideologies of the various political parties .....

The fact the man in opposition to anything the govt puts forward claims he would spend all this money again if he got elected to have another referendum so it was his ideas, not Labors ideas ..... doesn't that tell you something? Is the NO campaign just a political bases stunt?

T1 Terry

[Greynomad]

T1,

My problem with the VtoP is that, if it turns out to be a monumental clusterf**k, it can't be disbanded to try something else.

The best the gummint of the day could do is reduce the staff to one, ditto funding, and park that person in a dark room until they cry "Enough!" and resign. Even then, the Voice has to continue — it's in the constitution — so they employ someone else and park them…

You see where it leads?

I'm in favour of recognising the first inhabitants (they were never 'nations') in the constitution, but let's just legislate the Voice into existence and see how it goes. At least it can then be wound up by legislation if necessary.

[T1 Terry]

T1,

My problem with the VtoP is that, if it turns out to be a monumental clusterf**k, it can't be disbanded to try something else.

The best the gummint of the day could do is reduce the staff to one, ditto funding, and park that person in a dark room until they cry "Enough!" and resign. Even then, the Voice has to continue — it's in the constitution — so they employ someone else and park them…

You see where it leads?

I'm in favour of recognising the first inhabitants (they were never 'nations') in the constitution, but let's just legislate the Voice into existence and see how it goes. At least it can then be wound up by legislation if necessary.

I want to know where the idea that a politician gets a pension for the rest of their life, yet can take a highly paid job they set up while they were in office and it doesn't affect their pension? Is that in the constitution? What about being able to vote for their own pay rises? Is that in the constitution?
How much worse could a voice in parliament be, it's not like anything they put forward immediately gets rubber stamped, it would still have to go through the same parliamentary process, but at least it would be guide as to what the people who elected them want, not a vote buying exercise ..... If they have a voice then they can vote against money being wasted in areas that don't need it and put forward better suggestions as to where the money could actually do something to improve an area that really needs it .....

T1 Terry

T1 Terry

[Greynomad]

How much worse could a voice in parliament be, it's not like anything they put forward immediately gets rubber stamped, it would still have to go through the same parliamentary process, but at least it would be guide as to what the people who elected them want, not a vote buying exercise ..... If they have a voice then they can vote against money being wasted in areas that don't need it and put forward better suggestions as to where the money could actually do something to improve an area that really needs it .....

T1 Terry

All I see is another redundant layer of bureaucracy — which will likely benefit only the 'white aborigines' with huge pay packets and pensions.
I can't see it benefitting the remote communities, as it will be based in Canberra.

[T1 Terry]

How much worse could a voice in parliament be, it's not like anything they put forward immediately gets rubber stamped, it would still have to go through the same parliamentary process, but at least it would be guide as to what the people who elected them want, not a vote buying exercise ..... If they have a voice then they can vote against money being wasted in areas that don't need it and put forward better suggestions as to where the money could actually do something to improve an area that really needs it .....

T1 Terry

All I see is another redundant layer of bureaucracy — which will likely benefit only the 'white aborigines' with huge pay packets and pensions.
I can't see it benefitting the remote communities, as it will be based in Canberra.

It's up to the indigenous people to chose who is the voice in parliament, if they choose coconuts (brown on the outside, white on the inside) then it's their problem, but I think they should be held account to the people they represent and face elections the same as any other member of which ever house the member provides the voice to ..... not a lower house member or senator for each mob, but one of each for the whole collective mob voice .... maybe that will help to get them united behind improving their lot and weeding out those who are milking the system at the moment ....

T1 Terry

[Greynomad]

if they choose coconuts (brown on the outside, white on the inside) then it's their problem

It's the opposite colouring I'm concerned will take over:
White on the outside, but ignoring their white heritage in favour of (supposed?) black ancestors!

[T1 Terry]

if they choose coconuts (brown on the outside, white on the inside) then it's their problem

It's the opposite colouring I'm concerned will take over:
White on the outside, but ignoring their white heritage in favour of (supposed?) black ancestors!

The real question is, will the greater indigenous population vote for them as apposed to more mob based people to be their voice .... it could become very interesting as power struggles start form as to whether it unites them as one strong voice or the return of the early tribal hatred comes to the surface ..... and none of it can be blamed on the "White Australians"

T1 Terry

[Noggins]

I read a concerning piece about the Hidden Agenda behind the Voice yesterday.
This may be true, or maybe not, but it does explain what's behind the furor at the moment.
I always look behind what the Government is making a noise about to see what they're doing behind the public's back.

In 1990 the Federal Politician Kim Beasley made a statement in response to Senator Button's question in the Australian Federal Parliament about whether there should be a Republic.
His reply was
Kim Beasley Quote :- The United Nations has given the Federal Government a mandate of ownership for housing, farms, property, and business to government control once the REPUBLIC has been proclaimed.

The comment by Kim Beasley back in 1990 should be ringing alarm bells.
The United Nations is the NWO in waiting for a one-world government.
The current push by the Labor Party for the "Voice" referendum is the most single important part of their plan, which is to include the "ORIGINAL" Men, Women, and Children of this country, ( Indigenous people) into the Commonwealth Constitution because at the moment they have NO CONTRACT with the "ORIGINAL" Men, Women and Children of this Country.
Because there is "No Contract" with the "Original" people of Australia, a republic would not be achieved because the "Original" Men, Women, and Children of this country are the lawful land occupiers, and the Government would be unable to take control over ownership of housing, farms, property, and business, thus thwarting its secretive push for a totalitarian republic, where you would own nothing and be happy.
The plan as you can see was already underway back in 1990.
Every state in Australia has already sold off the Lands and Titles Office, and your original titles have been destroyed. The value of your property is the TITLE.
All property's certificate of title has been digitized and this is not a lawful proof of historical ownership.
.......................

If true then the "voice" is the wolf in sheep's clothing.


Ron