Jerry_Atrick

Yeah - but if it bugs you so much, you can still vote with your wallet.

I'm not sure what the point you are making is, Peter. These are discretionary, and are charging for content.. much like when you pay for a ticket to atteend sport, or some concert. If you want to experience it live, you pay for it. I can't see an issue with that. I tend to agreee with OME. I think you could extend that red line around Australia (but obviously, within it), and it would be the same - this distance to the coast will differ, but that would be generally the same. Where do most ATSI's live? Anbd where do most of the non=ATSI's live? The way I look at the voice is this: Non-ATSI's have contitutional representation - they very system set up in 1901 was by the non-ATSI pople for the non-ATSI people (yes, there were Afghanis and Chinese here, too, but apart from religiious differences, their lifestyle and culture are consistent, if not the same as ATSIs.. plus, they came voluntarily to a new land). People who have immigrated since, come to a new land and should take on that new land's culture, while respecting their original culture. That is fine and the system of representation is the governmental institutions that the constution is about. The original people who were here for millenia beforehand have a very different culture, were displaced, oppressed, and abused with no treaty thanks to the defective delcaration of terra nullkius as recognised by the High Court. They have no guaranteed representation in matters affecting them. Yes, there have been representative bodies, both governmetn and non-government. Sadly, they have been politicised and weaponised, particuralry by Howard and Abo (for once SFM didn't seem to have a hand in it). Don't they, too, deserve a constitutional right of representation of their community in matters affectig them?

Quiter clearly, drugs are used by more than lower socioeconomic people and yes, there are wealthy ones who are addicted to them too. I used to work with an incredibly bright mathemagician, who was a coke-head. The improverished don't have a monopoly on addictive attributes nor mental health issues. But they are the ones that don't have the access to the support to either just get them through it or rehabilitate them.. And they are, on a proportional basis more likely to succumb, because one of the reasons they are there is most of them have these attributes compared to the rest of the population. Also, remember, a lot of petty crime such as theft, muggingsd, etc, are committed by people without money feeding their habit. And of course, many people who are users are not addicted, but use drugs recreationally.. You don't have to be an addict to use and buy drugs.

Are you saying these were used before white people came over? And that they were integenerationally oppressed and abused before the white fella? Yes and no. For most people it will come down to choice, for others with little income or in remote areas, processed foords etc, which are full of ship, are the only ting available that won't cost them the earth. What were her circumstances and what options were available suitable to her circumstances? Has the rest of Australia stopped eating white flour-based products? Many pooer non-ATSI people eat white flour based products? I think without knowing her circumstances, it really is hard to tell or cast judgement. And this doesn't address the alochol and substance abuse to which I think Bruce was addressing most of his concern - which has far more repurcussions. And I posted evidence that this is not limited to the ATSI community. Then you are misreading what I have stated. Time and time again, I have stated it is not a guarantee... What I have stated is that if it is in the constitution, it is a signal to all sides that the Aussie people have voted for it and want it to work. And that will put pressure on all sides.. the pollies, the public service, and the Voice itself to deliver.. And it should lessen the politicsation of it as displayed with other representative bodies by predominantly conservative governments. Remember, all the constituion says is that the government shall maintain a military.. no guarantees what it has to be or how effective it has to be. I think I said that in that once the eyeballs that sell advertising move on, the MSM will, too.

I don't deny that ATSI illiteracy is a major issue, however, I would argue that this is because of their circumstances. The problem with previous attempts, which is also acknowledged by Dutton, which is why he said =if he were elected he would hald effectively the same referendum (although not in so much words), is that the programs have been pushed onto the ATSI community. I learned throught he school of hard knocks, and later on management courses, the best way to get results is to get buy in, and the best way to get buy in is to get the people you need to take ownership. What better way than to have a porperly organised consultation body by the (ATSI) people for the (ATSI) people and getting them to take ownership of the recommednations they make? Having the Voice ensshrined in the constituion, I think (and I stress, it is only my opinion) elevates the visibility and accountability of all sides.. Which is why I would, if I could, vote yes. I agree with this, but looking at it through my lens where not having a properly funded and respected ATSI representation body would be absuird. Unf, since the Howard years, it has been apparent that there are some in our society that thinks they should not have this, and they have consistently taken action to undermine ATSI representative bodies. So, I want to make sure there is always one, and I think the requirement for the government to maintain one as voteed for by the public of Australia would put a lot of pressure to be fair dinkuim about it.

I'm a Lesbian, but have never been to Lesbos Island...

You sort of answer the question of why the Voice shoudl be set up. These are problems inflicted on ATSIs by whitefellas. Is it the fault of a young ATSI, that, due to many generations of oppression and abuse plus the introduction of substance abuse to placate that oppression and abuse, that these kids are where they are today; many with fetal alcohol syndrome? And also, they tend to live in remote regions where getting assistance is fard harder than the citites (which is becoming hard enough)? There are plently of ATSI communities where alcohol is banned and they seem to do OK. And the elders keep a keen eye out to ensure it doesn';t get in. On what eveidence, but even if that is the case, the department can say stuff you, we're goiogn to ban alcohol, anyway.. That is the point of the voice - it is advisory. Will it, or won't i? How do you or I know? How do current ATYSI representative bodies react. . Re alcohol and sugar to ATSI communities, I would be very happy placing a large bet that the lobbying done be the alcohol and sugar industries to not ban it will be much bigger than the ATSIs. And anyway, is the prevlance of such issues within ther ATSI communities any more than those non-ATSIs that are diaffected by society today? Most real problems of substance abuse in non ATSI society is amongst low socio-economic segments, and their levle of sunstance abuse and intergenerational affects are about the same. From this report on page vii (https://ndarc.med.unsw.edu.au/sites/default/files/ndarc/resources/TR.228.pdf): "Drug-dependent people are particularly likely to be unemployed and to experience marginalisation, both of which can exacerbate their problems and prevent seeking or benefiting from treatment. This report recommends that social policies:" Is there a parallel to the ATSI population?

I agree, Bruce.., Back to topic. The question of whether ATSIs should be able to use whiteflla's advancements when practicing blackfella's culture is not the issue here. The issue about the voice is trying to resolve the issues ATSIs have living in a whitefella's world. We all think they are layabout bludgers who are on metho 24x7. How do we fix that is the purpose of the voice - not whether they can use a tinnie and speargun to get turtles. While I agree that when practicing their traditional rites and rights in ATSI cultiure, they probably should be restricted to treaditional ways, they still have to integtate with wider society and this is where we have been abhorrently culpable (as a society, not individually) of not facilitating that bit a long time ago. And it is that bit which is what the Voice is about. Jeez, if the US can be better at it than us, with their parlous human rights records, then surely we can improve.

Respectfully: I disagree because the fact that, should it get up, the majority of Australians and the maljority of the majority of states will send a clear message they want it to work... and that will have some sway in the minds of the pollies who will be tasked to make it work. If the Yes vote was to miraculously get up, the MSM, which is unf, is beholden to corporate rather than humanity interests, will initially have its attention drawn to the next set of developments until their marketers deem ATSI affairs as not generatintg enough eyebealls interested to sell advertising. So, at least in the early stages, it will generate a lot of interest and people will be looking for change.. But once the hype is over and done with, the MSM will eother conceal or diminish any newsworthy stories, but at least those who fight for the little bloke will be able to leverage the fact it got over the line because the majority of Australians wanted it. I agree with the statement and have used it many times here.. but until we know how it will be implemented in the normal legal process of making laws, how can we make such a determination it will be the same way it has been done in the past? As I mentioned above, a Yes vote is likely to generate a lot of MSM attention - good and bad - so change will be front and centre. Again, I suggest you look up the principles (https://voice.gov.au/about-voice/voice-principles), which do seem to take into account previous failings to a degree, as this will give an idea of how the initial implementation, which, by the way, is not in the constitution, will work with this government - and if found to nto be working or there is room for improvement, the government can make changes without having to go back to a referendum. This is the normal process of making laws that implement constitutional powers. I don't want to disparage your opinion, but the referendum is is only ensuring there is an ATSI representative body that may be consulted on ATSI matters (only). Your opinion is more aligned to the implementation of what the constution requires will fail. It may.. as may everything else the government legislates on. But like everything esle, the government can refine it to make it work. That takes political will.

I have no idea of rust removal, except that I buy a spray can in the same colour of the item I am treating, which includes rust-deadener, and repaint whatever it is (some old cast iron downpiping in black, lately). But in terms of making money from the business, it will depend on the business iteself. A firm that reactively remove rust from customer's things that they bring in may well have publihed timeframes; so if buying one of these things that can operate at an industrial scale will give them a competitive advantage - or they decide to market that if you need it done that day or within a couple of days instead of a couple of weeks but it's going to cost you, then yeah - it is worth the investment. But if they don't see a compeititve advantage, because, say their customers are all cost-conscious and don't mind the wait, then until the price drops, or someone else takes the lead that starts denting revenues, then they will continue. Similarly, they may be removing rust on a regular basis as their business is, like OTs, into selling effectively reconditioned bits; or they may do some restorations (e.g. of cars), and need second hand parts, then time is probably not as important as cost, unless for some reason, the used marketplace for those bits is aprticularly hit. A retail business will normally stock parts on a cyclical basis, so yuo can have items in stock now ready to make you money while the next batch are enjoying their bath; hopefully as your current stock reduces, they stuff coming out of the bath will replenish it (yes, even if they are different parts; a business is looking for turnover and margin). What I can see, assuiiming these things are reliable and industrial is a mobile rust removal business; where service providers rock up in their van with one or two of these, and any adaptations required and can remove rus there an then on the items, whether they are protable and could be bought into the shop, or they may be larger and awkward to move... Also, what we don't know is how long the laser itself can function before it overheats, and how long those battery packls last between charges. I took a look on ebay and there are plenty that are well north of $20k, more like $35k -40K, and i am thinking they may be more suitable for industrial applications? And, as Nev says, it may depend on the nature of the metal and the use; you may not have a chice.

I forgot to come back on this one... Yes, there is nothing to say the contracts weren't enforceable just because they are signed in the caretaker period. However, the Libs breached the constitutional convention (which is not enforceable, but shows where they were and appear still to be as a party) which is not to undertake any new obligations during that period. This was an issue that Labor made clear they were unlikely to continue with, despite saying it coiuld still go ahead (likely based on how far the consortium were prepared to alter the terms of the deal). As such, despite the amount of groundwork put in before signing of the contract, the government should hold off awarding the contract if it is not signed by the time the caretaker period comes along until after the election; especially if it is a contentious decision and election issue. That way, the people get their say, and if the Libs had of won, they could have signed it after the election , which would not have resulted in a material delay. They knew they were likely to lose and I would argue gifted the consortium as a reult.. Even if Labor had come to power and canned it before the contracts were signed, it would have cost as it is common (and often there are collateral contracts that require) payment for reasonable expenses in an abandoned project like that - it costs a lot of money for suppliers just to get to that stage.

On what basis can you see a vote for yes not improving things? All a vote for yes does is to insert into the constituion the need for the governement to ensure a Voice is instituted. It does not mandate howe it is to be implemented, which will determine how effective - or otherwise it will be. It isn't a simplistic approach to fixing things; it is an attempt to ensure that ATSI have a voice in how those things (problems) are fixed.. It can't fix things itself. Re the corruption - the planned implementation is to make it within terms of reference of the NACC. But what are they going to be corrupt at? Recommending paying their mates. It does not make it automatically a fait accompli - the deparment with decision making power have to make that decision. The opportunity for corruption of the voice in the current government's current principles of their implementation (which can be changed at any time), would be to squander any budget for research. And the NACC (and statutory auditor) will have powers to investigate. Now, I do have criticicms of the NACC, but as has been pointed out to me here, it is better than what was before. FWIW, my opinion (and that is all it is) differs to yours in that I think it provides an better opportunity - not guarantee - to improve things because it will be the community that will be reperesetned under a constitutional body to advise on the improvements - and whatever ways the government or departments want to go, they know they will be dealing with some representation, or an advisory body mandated by the poeple of Australia. This would provide a powerful argument to minimise political interference such as went on with the ATSIC Commission. But, I do concede, it is not a silver bullet - nothing is - yet everyone is voting as they expect it to be. So, you know how much the Voice is going to cost, and how many people it will be employing, and that most will be bureaucrats and not representatives? Care to share any links, or do you have the inside track? And of the departments spending lots of money - do you not realise that they are given budgets every year and spend it regardless? When I worked for the public servie in Aus, towards June, management would ask us to find ways of spending money or we would have our budgets reduced the next year. Not a great way of managing spend, but there you go. They will get their money and spend it regardless of the Voice. To try and make it clear to you, the question is do you want ATSI representation about decisions that affect them enshrined in the constitution. That is it.. You may or may not want to; that is fine; Make your deicion, but please don't base it on false facts, or grandiose statements - like bad outcomes without being able to name them. And yes, no referendum has been repealed.. But, if the government decided tomorrow it didn't want armed forces, it could legislate dismiss the armed forces en masse and to have an emu, echnidna, and wombat as the head of the army, navy, and airforce. And the High Court could not stop them (the military may have other ideas, but that would be called a coup)

You beat me to it, @octave: https://www.sbs.com.au/nitv/article/deeply-hurtful-this-no-campaigner-labelled-the-stolen-generation-as-mistruth/lbruqnqnk There are populations who will always vote away from their interests, for whatever reason. UK voted Brexit; and are now looking at removing guarantees to their human rights. Australia voted in SFM and Abo. US voted in Trump.. None seem to be in the interest of the vast majority who voted them in.

The actor that was the Karate Kid's mentor?

This sums up the DA discussion nicely:

Again, I agree with you.. but where in the constituion are there guarantees of rectification if something is not working right? Show me one, and i will shut up. The connstitution comes close to guaranteeing a democratic and transparent law making process, and the powers and obligations.. it does not, however, guarantee the outcomes of the exercise of those powers and obligations will achieve anything, nor that the law making process will indeed be democratic and transparent. There is good reason for it; what was envisaged as fair and balanced in 1901 in many things (most, I would argue) is not the same as today. So if you don't allow the open and democratic law making process to move with the times, you will have to go to a referendum every time the law has to change - because to achieve that balance and fairness, the constitution has to be implementing legilsation, not just a description of what the powers and obligations are. But the open and democratic process of law making will hopefully - over time - result in a balanced implementation of whatever it is; look at all the complaints we have on these fora of inequities, unfairness, outright corruptions, etc.. and that is just this fora.. It sort of indicates virtually every area of the constitution has no guarantees. Again, happy to be corrected, but show me somewhere in the constitution that guarantees anything is fair and balanced, and achieves its aims. Otherwise, the question is simple - do you want the government to have to ensure there is an ATSI advisory body or not.. Everything else is conjecture and will depend on the implementation of the day.,

I gues they start drawing their pensions as soon as they can, or at least use iut in a tax/fiscally beneficial way. It does not stop them doing other work. My guess is the idea is that they have considerablke influence even out of office and it tries to ameliorate the incentive to weild that influence negatively to benefit finanically. Whether or not it works, is a totally different thing.

I understand that.. Can you give me an example in the consutution where it guarantees something the governments have to do or can do is going to be balanced, fair, proportional, etc?

OK... Movement is not quite the accurate description... but let's run with it, anyway. There's a movement that represents 10% of the people. What is the consequence though?

OK - fair enough - If it is systemic across the country, they it shold be intorduced; if it is localised, then local regs should do it.. I don't see how voting No in the voice would make it any more probable that enacting such legislation would take place. A Yes vote doesn't give the ATSI community carte blanche that I could see.

Karma is a bitch, sometimes, I guess.

Are you suggesting they would hunt less animals with traditional weapons? Is there evidence to that? Spacey - I suggest tyou read the constitution and spell out anything in powers and obligations of government that is more clear or transparent. And if we vote Yes, can you please enlighten us on the consequences that we will face? Because, seriously, I don't see anything practical other than the govermnet must maintain an advisory body and I really want to know what I am missing.