Further Effects of "The Voice" debate

[onetrack]

It was a politicised referendum from the word Go - and there was no general community consultation on whether a Voice was needed, or if something else was required, to appease the permanently-angry members of the Indigenous set. The Voice was just put up by Albo, out of the blue.

[facthunter]

I think it was an election promise. Surely having a referendum is no earth shattering event. The Swiss do it all the time and no one there gets their Bowels in a knot.

[spacesailor]

If you vote NO ,

At lease it can be rewritten,  BE more Transparent. & a lot more informed. 

Vote YES , And you will live with the consequences .

spacesailor

[facthunter]

I doubt it will be revisited. Duttons statement is not in good faith. It's a diversion to confuse more.  Nev

[octave]

46 minutes ago, onetrack said:

The Voice was just put up by Albo, out of the blue.

Was it out of the blue??????????     

 

 

Labor promises to ‘move quickly’ on Indigenous voice to parliament referendum if elected

Edited September 28, 2023 by octave

[Old Koreelah]

1 hour ago, onetrack said:

It was a politicised referendum from the word Go - and there was no general community consultation on whether a Voice was needed, or if something else was required, to appease the permanently-angry members of the Indigenous set. The Voice was just put up by Albo, out of the blue.

OT that is not so.
The Voice was a result of a nation-wide movement of Indig people that culminated in the Uluru Statement. Many of us followed these developments for years, even if the mainstream media did not.

[Marty_d]

The Uluru Statement from the heart was written 6 and a half years ago, not like this is a surprise. 

If you want to make up all sorts of excuses to vote no, go ahead, it's your vote.

But don't fool yourself and say this won't change anything,  or it'll change too much, or the abos will be coming for your house. That's all BS.

You are simply voting to let the original inhabitants of this land have a Voice. That's all. The government of the day decides the format of that voice and the next government can change it if they want. 

 

By the way, the only advertising I got in the mailbox was from the No side, and it was full of lies.

[Jerry_Atrick]

5 hours ago, Bruce Tuncks said:

Yesterday we saw an echidna around the house, a meaty looking slow thing with very short legs. I'm angry that blackfellows are allowed to shoot them . Personally, I reckon the use of rifles should go with whitefeller rules, and "traditional hunting rights" should mean that traditional weapons should be used. So I would restrict blackfellows to spears, and not ones with steel heads either.

A pipedream?   Yes, but the legislation I would like to see will be more likely to follow a "no" vote.

Are you suggesting they would hunt less animals with traditional weapons? Is there evidence to that?

3 hours ago, spacesailor said:

If you vote NO ,

At lease it can be rewritten,  BE more Transparent. & a lot more informed. 

Vote YES , And you will live with the consequences .

spacesailor

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.

 

 

[spacesailor]

" Nation Wide Movement " ! .

Of Ten percent of Australians .

spacesailor

 

[nomadpete]

2 hours ago, Jerry_Atrick said:

Are you suggesting they would hunt less animals with traditional weapons? Is there evidence to that?

Yes indeed. I have personally seen indigenous using outboard motor dinghys to bring multiple sea turtles in for feasts, when the traditional canoe and spear might take all day to kill one. And then repeating this. Coincidentally there is a serious decline in sea turtle populations in northern waters.

Although to some extent there are other factors at play, the modern tools tilt the balance significantly against the prey.

 

I wouldn't mind so much if they would do the same for feral pigs, goats, horses, camels, etc.

[Jerry_Atrick]

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.

Edited September 28, 2023 by Jerry_Atrick

[Jerry_Atrick]

34 minutes ago, spacesailor said:

" Nation Wide Movement " ! .

Of Ten percent of Australians .

spacesailor

 

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?

 

[nomadpete]

As I see it, the issue of hunting rules, has no bearing on the proposed change to the constitution.

 

My comment was simply supporting the assertion that some special privileges enjoyed by some indigenous, are not well balanced.

It is an example of something that would benefit from revision, but like many problematic issues, has no guarantee of rectification by creation of a new voice.

 

[Jerry_Atrick]

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?

[Old Koreelah]

4 hours ago, Marty_d said:

The Uluru Statement from the heart was written 6 and a half years ago, not like this is a surprise…

You are simply voting to let the original inhabitants of this land have a Voice. That's all. The government of the day decides the format of that voice and the next government can change it if they want. 

We can blame the Howard government for this effort to put The Voice in the Constitution. They want to stop a future PM from doing what he did: getting rid of an Aboriginal consultative body.

 

4 hours ago, Marty_d said:

By the way, the only advertising I got in the mailbox was from the No side, and it was full of lies.

Me too. We received a cardboard list of misinformation and straight-out fibs with a photo of Barnaby Joice on it. Probably paid for out of his electoral allowance- that is, you and me, the taxpayers.

 

[Jerry_Atrick]

2 hours ago, nomadpete said:

It is an example of something that would benefit from revision, but like many problematic issues, has no guarantee of rectification by creation of a new voice.

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.,

Edited September 28, 2023 by Jerry_Atrick

[nomadpete]

8 hours ago, Jerry_Atrick said:

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?

And that is what some say is a reason to vote this change down.

Because the change is implied to be a fix to make government actions more fair for indigenous Australians. As you point out, the constitution change (in itself) does not mention anything about improving balance or fairness.

 

 

[facthunter]

At Present. Money gives access.  BIG Clive is now entering the fray spending profusely.. HE reckons that's DEMOCRATIC.  Nev

[old man emu]

Just now, facthunter said:

BIG Clive is now entering the fray spending profusely.. HE reckons that's DEMOCRATIC. 

Actually, it's socialism - the money of the wealthy is distributed to the needy as remuneration for their labour.

[facthunter]

You'd have to be a Proper Gander to believe that.  Nev

[onetrack]

I got this forwarded email from a friend this morning. The missive is signed, unlike so many extreme-right-wing chain emails - by a John Pascoe, who is a retired West Australian accountant.

 

It's a copy of quite a thought-provoking speech by a S.A. nurse, who has Aboriginal ancestry. I believe what she says is largely true, and a view that many "Aboriginal activists" refuse to acknowledge.

Kerry White also features in a number of YouTube videos expressing an alternative approach to the Voice to produce a better outcome for the Aboriginals in remote regions.

 

 

"It is very useful to hear about The Voice' and its background from the lips of an aboriginal lady who has been directly involved over many years in efforts to lift aboriginal people. Kerry White was born in Port Augusta South Australia and spent her early career as a nurse, before running her own antique shop and plant nursery. She has also been focused on Indigenous and community health services in the mid-north and Upper Spencer Gulf. White is an elder of the Narungga people, and has worked in a number of community roles including at the Port Pirie Aboriginal Community Centre. She is also a diabetes educator and a case manager with Families SA."

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

A Better Way - a speech by Kerry White

 

I am a Narungga leader and Native Title holder. My grandfather, mother and extended family come from the Point Pierce Mission here in SA. I also have ties through extended family to the Utnamutna, Kaurna, Nukunu, Warlpiri and Pitjantjatjara Aboriginal people. l served on boards and committees, both Aboriginal and Non-Aboriginal. My area of expertise is in health and small business, I have worked in both public and private sectors, including the Welfare system. 

 

I am going to share a few facts with you this evening. Some information you may be aware of, and some information may be new to you.
Albanese claims that the Voice to parliament came about due to the Uluru Statement from the Heart.
The push by activists for a treaty began as early as 1888, since then there are several recorded attempts. In 1924 they began pushing for a treaty with the Federal government. Bob Hawke in 1988 committed to a treaty by 1990, this promise however was broken in 1991 in favour of a Reconciliation.

 

In 1989 ATSIC was established. Several Aboriginal Organisations were set up under ATSIC to deliver outcome-based services to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.

Neither the Organisations nor ATSIC delivered the promised outcomes. ATSIC was not interested in doing the job they were established to do. What then, was ATSIC’s priority?

 

The answer to that question came in 1995 when ATSIC pushed the Keating government for a Social Justice package including, you guessed it, constitutional recognition. Thankfully that didn’t happen and was never implemented. 
In 2000 there was another push for a treaty and constitutional change, then in 2010 the Gillard government pushed for a constitutional change; they didn’t succeed. 

 

In 2017 the Uluru Statement from the Heart emerged, but whose statement, was it? The Uluru Statement from the Heart was orchestrated by Thomas Mayo. Thomas Mayo by his own admission likes the Communist style regime and will be asking for rent and repatriations to be paid by the Australian people.
The end game is power, control and the elimination of our current system of government.
In 2017, Malcolm Turnbull rejected the Indigenous Voice to Parliament. It was stated at the time “The Referendum Council provided no guidance as to how this new representative assembly would be elected or how the diversity of Indigenous circumstances and experience could be fairly and democratically represented”. Here we are in 2023 and that statement is as true today as it was back then. When Turnbull rejected the voice to parliament he was labelled as a “Mean Spirited Bastard”, now they just label anyone and everyone who opposes the voice to parliament as racist.

 

Two years ago, news travelled through the Aboriginal grapevine that the Uluru mob were not happy about the statement. The Pitjantjatjarra and Yankunytjatjara are the traditional owners of the land that Tjukurpa/Uluru sits on. Numerous elders were shocked when they learnt that their names appeared on the canvas that they didn’t endorse (canvas is the Aboriginal term for document).

 

The elders want the Australian public to know about the lie that is being sold to them as factual. They have rejected the statement, stating that it's dangerous and the canvas should be torn up. 
This means that the Uluru Statement from the Heart is a fraudulent document that is being pushed onto every Australian as representing the will of Aboriginal people. Aboriginals in groups have taken to Twitter creating short videos with a simple message - We Vote No.

 

There are many pitfalls in the Indigenous Voice to Parliament, one is in the name itself. The definition of "indigenous" means native to a particular place or country. Therefore, anyone born in Australia is Indigenous and can be a representative of the voice in parliament. This serves the activists well.

 

The government seems unwilling to address the tick a box revolution. Why would they? Labor abolished proof of Aboriginality back in the early 2000’s. According to the census there are 800,000 plus Aboriginal people in Australia. The actual number of Aboriginal people is approximately half that number.

 

The average lifespan of an Aboriginal person is 65 years, they have the worst outcomes in terms of health. Diabetes, heart failure and kidney disease top the list. Aboriginal people for decades have endured high infant mortality rates, so our numbers have not increased significantly over the last 100 years. Aboriginal numbers according to the census have soared since approximately 2005 when the government abolished proof of Aboriginality. 

 

Consequentially this means that the tick a box movement will be able to have a say on what happens regarding Aboriginal people without knowledge of the complexities and diversity within the different Aboriginal mobs. 
Anthony Albanese stated in one of his many media appearances in relation to the voice that billions of dollars have been spent on Aboriginal people and nothing has changed. This is an undisputable fact. 
The question is, why has nothing changed? The answer is simple, for decades Aboriginal people have been exploited to gain millions of dollars in funding by the Aboriginal organisations setup to provide outcomes for Aboriginal people.

In the last 3 decades a growing number of Not-for-Profit Organisations have capitalised on the feeding frenzy for their share of the Aboriginal dollars. Health services also get a large chunk of the pie if they show they provide services to Aboriginal people.

 

The sad truth is that Aboriginal people in rural and remote communities do not benefit from the billions of dollars the organisations have received. Another fact is that millions have been rorted by individuals within these organisations. Plus, there is also the millions wasted in the endless pursuit of a treaty, the voice, and changing the Constitution.

 

The Australian public is continually being fed mistruths to support the elite's narratives to gain access to more power, and more of the taxpayers’ dollars.
Back in the early 2000’s the AHACs (Aboriginal Health Advisory Committees) were working on a draft proposal to be put forward to the Government for Closing the Gap. We finally got it passed, but the gap between Aboriginal health and non-Aboriginal health continues to widen. Why is this happening?

 

The AHACs were a community initiative set up to be an advisory body working in conjunction with the Public Health Sector. AHCSA (Aboriginal Health Council of South Australia) began convincing the AHAC chairs that they needed to go Community Controlled. AHCSA gained control over these community-controlled health services and the millions in funding that go with it.

 

By the time the realisation set in that it was not how they were told that it would be, it was too late, the wheels had been set in motion. Many of the community-controlled health services ended up closed in rural and remote communities. 20 years ago some Aboriginal families relocated from Alice Springs to SA because the health services in the Territory were so bad.

 

You may be aware that mining companies pay millions of dollars per year to some Aboriginal communities in the form of Royalties. These communities are still not thriving .....why? 

 

The reason lies in the way the Royalty payments are structured. Once again, the money goes to the elites, most of whom don’t even live in the communities they are being paid Royalty payments for. None of the Royalty payments are being used to improve living conditions in those communities. The millions in Royalty payments could be better utilised improving these communities.

You may be surprised, even angry to learn that many of those receiving these payments are also collecting Centrelink benefits. They are required to disclose the Royalty payments to Centrelink, but they don’t.

 

The supposedly Stolen Generation is a mistruth which brought about another Aboriginal organisation called “Bringing Them Home”. Back in the early 50’s and 60’s mixed race children were being removed and placed in institutions for their own safety. Mixed race children were not accepted by blacks or whites and were being abused and in some cases died as a result of their injuries in rural and remote Australia.

 

Remote communities here in SA up near the Northern Territory Border have been made dry zones by the elders to combat alcohol fuelled violence. Problem is that some parents and grandparents started abandoning the children and headed to Alice Springs for the consumption of alcohol. Leaving the children alone and neglected in the communities. Elders in some communities opted for the cashless debit card which Albanese scrapped when he was elected. 

 

There is no denying things need to change if we are to improve outcomes for Aboriginal people in rural and remote Australia. What is clear is that we need transparency, productivity and accountability for all the taxpayer’s money spent by these organisations and the government. What we don’t need is more of the same BS that for generations, has been built on untruths, half-truths, and fiction.

 

We the Aboriginal people of rural and remote Australia reject the tokenistic, Sorry day, and Welcome to Country. The Welcome to Country was the inception of one man, an Aboriginal actor by the name of Ernie Dingo. Aboriginal people in rural and remote Australia were not consulted, and we didn’t want it. All the Sorry day and Welcome to Country achieved was to stir up racism towards us and fuelled gang violence. None of us can change the past, but together we can change the future. 

 

Aboriginal people in rural and remote Australia want real change and tangible results for their communities. There is a saying “A new broom sweeps clean” it’s time to clean house and remove the dead wood that is draining the public purse.

 

Aboriginal people reject the divisive Voice to parliament. We are asking the good people of Australia to stand with us as one, and reject it too. Vote No to the Voice and demand a better way for all Australians. 
We are One people, One Nation, One Australia

 

Thank You
Kerry White

 

 

John D Pascoe

Unit 487, 118 Monash Avenue
Nedlands  WA  6009

Mobile: 0406 380 215
Email: johnjill@westnet.com.au

[onetrack]

Interestingly enough, the above email is the first of any No vote information I have received - but I've received plenty of Yes vote literature and emails, and media articles.

[facthunter]

It's an interesting and thoughtful  article. I can't recall getting anything by post either way.    Nev

[old man emu]

Kerry White doesn't sound much like a radical from a Sydney or Melbourne elite suburb. It seems her life's work in the area of public health has kept her cultural ties strong. Maybe she is in fact a Voice of the rural and remote people who are the ones who really need to voice their concerns and ideas of how these people and governments should work together.

 

And then we get the unhelpful calls to stop geological surveys 375 kms off the coast because the methodology (generating sound waves by blasts of air into the water and listening for the sound echo) might interfere with the communication of whales. Australia’s Exclusive Economic Zone extends 370 kms off the coast.

[octave]

1 hour ago, old man emu said:

Kerry White doesn't sound much like a radical

 

I am not sure about that.

 

 

 

During the same podcast, Ms White alleged that the Voice would end up "taking over" Parliament and abolishing it.
 

"You can call me a conspiracy theorist if you like," she said.
 

"But I know the way that these people work and that is what will end up happening. Aboriginal people will be running this country and all the white people here will be paying to live here."

 

https://www.sbs.com.au/nitv/article/deeply-hurtful-this-no-campaigner-labelled-the-stolen-generation-as-mistruth/lbruqnqnk

 

This does not seem moderate to me.     Is this what "No " supporters here believe?

 

Has this happened in Canada? New Zealand? Norway? Finland?

 

No supporters that I have talked to seem unaware that South Australia has legislated a state-based voice with elections on March 16, 2024.  Will this lead to dire predictions of the no-case coming to pass? 

 

https://www.agd.sa.gov.au/first-nations-voice

 

 I guess time will tell.

 

Other countries seem to manage various arrangements.   Although these countries still have their problems it is hard to find a country that has as poor outcomes as we do.

 

 

Edited September 29, 2023 by octave