Rooter .....A calm and lucid take on it.
Printable View
Rooter .....A calm and lucid take on it.
You should stop listening to Peta and Sky News. The Uluru statement is one page and it always has been.Quote:
Originally Posted by Radoush
https://www.niaa.gov.au/foi/agency-foi-disclosure-logs
https://www.referendumcouncil.org.au...nal_Report.pdf
It's a YES for me. It's limited to making 'representations' to parliament, so does not have any veto powers over laws.
"There are no details..." well, there are, but that's not the purpose of changing the constitution anyway. Laws are introduced via legislation, not the constitution.
I can only see it as a positive step towards closing the gap.
Unfortunately, the people who pushed for a "Voice" are the city-slicker power brokers who live in cities, not the poor and massively disadvantaged Aborigines living in the outback and in poor circumstances in small towns across Australia. The Uluru statement was developed by the power brokers.
If they really wanted Australians to "listen" they could have done things about it that do not require a change in the Constitution.
Then there is the dishonesty of refusing to talk about anything other than "Voice" when their own Uluru Statement talks about "Truth" and "Treaty".
Very difficult to trust such people. I am voting "NO". I don't want to be treated like an idiot and live on a drip-feed of information they control.
I have so little knowledge about the impact of this, nor do I have any vested interest in this racial debate, that I will probably just flip a coin to decide which way I go.
I think this would be a "poetic" way to decide. I get to keep that coin and not have use it to pay the FINE for not voting.
If a so called voice can tackle fundamental problems plaguing the aboriginal community, then sure.
But the pollies never talk about solid metrics - if i vote yes, does this:
1. Lower aboriginal incarceration rates. And if so by how much
2. What health outcomes will it have
3. How does it solve the drug and alcohol abuse problems
4. How does it solve the violent youth problems
Etc
All of the important metrics they chose to ignore but come up with the self back patting voice in which is purely political brownie points.
Voting no.
Plenty of ethnic groups that have migrated to Australia, were disadvantaged in the first generation and are successful by the second. It’s of the back of strong family values and hard work.
Race and skin colour have nothing to do with success. It’s about culture.
I also don’t agree with the idea that our constitution enshrines an advisory body to the government on the basis of race.
Reminds me of why Singapore exists and is so much more successful than Malaysia.
I would like to see the constitution recognise Aboriginal people as the first people of this country, and the gaps closed in standards of living between indigenous and non indigenous people. I just don’t think a race based voice is the right way to go about it. There’s an elitist mindset from the architects of the voice as well.
People can oppose things on the basis of principle, and not “racism and sheer stupidity”.
Its a no from me.
I don't pretend to understand politics at all but I feel if something was replicated similar to NZ then I would be all for it. Every time I go to NZ, I feel their indigenous have better opportunities. How often have you seen an aboriginal work in a cafe or an office in Sydney? In my whole 20yrs of corporate life, I've only seen one that worked in an office environment. I've actually seen more maoris in corporate life here in Oz.
Donkey vote for me I'm on neither side of Yes or No
Who’d have thought there’d be so much misinformation and ignorance on a punting forum!
I find it amazing how quickly people can make a simple decision more complicated than they have the capacity to understand.
Blackfellas are a distinct minority in this country so despite representation in a democratic parliament they will never receive appropriate representation given their history on this land.
For this reason alone they deserve a slightly louder 'voice' than they have now.
Constitutional change is justified based on the need for longer term stability, we don't want polarised politics flip flopping on this.
According to data from the Productivity Commission's Indigenous Expenditure Report, which is a government report, the total government expenditure on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people per year is close to $40 billion. 40 BILLION DOLLARS!!
All from taxpayers!
So much of that money I’m sure is just wasted on drugs, alcohol and tobacco. It’s very sad. I grew up in housing commission and whilst most families did their best to provide for their kids and take care of their homes, the most neglected homes were almost always those of aboriginal families. It’s sad because the children don’t have a chance, growing up with the wrong crowd and neglected by their parents which leads to a cycle of generational welfare dependency. Look at Alice Springs how bad things got when the alcohol ban was lifted. Call me racist and ignorant but I know what I saw growing up. The most vulnerable don’t need a voice to parliament headed up by the indigenous elites, they need a loving home, a good education and a meaningful job.Quote:
Originally Posted by johnny
Amazing, isn't it?Quote:
Originally Posted by ReginaldBubbles
Big NO from me.
This has nothing to do with aboriginal rights, all it does is put a minority of wealthy educated aboriginals on the government payroll with taxpayer funded "study" trips and the most generous super payouts in the world. How's that going to help the poor blackfellas on the outskirts of Alice Springs?
"Race and skin colour have nothing to do with success. It’s about culture."
You're joking, right? That is the most privileged statement I have read in a while.
You realise that until 1962 First Nations people had absolutely NO say in the running of the country, they weren't even allowed to vote, and it was in 1967 they were Igranted full citizen rights. It was not until 1984 that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people were politically equal to other Australians under the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment Act 1983, so the migrants you mentioned that faced "difficulties" were at least recognised as humans with basic human rights like voting, they never had their children stolen out of their homes and sent to complete strangers (a policy that lasted until 1969), up to at least the 1940s Aboriginal men were still being captured and sent to circuses and zoos in Europe and North America, they were excluded from education policies - government schools actually had the right to refuse education to First Nations people until the 70s, again meaning the immigrants you mentioned could walk off a boat and in to a public school and be given an education that was not available to first nations people, that was government policy from 1902. Think about it. It's cultural, or it is a product of our treatment of them that has made us an international laughing stock every time we have the audacity to mention human rights abuses elsewhere?
I grew up in housing commission, my family came here from war-torn Vietnam in the 80s probably around the same time Aborigines were granted suffrage.
I am privileged in the sense that I was born to a good family. My parents worked hard to provide for me and my siblings. We didn’t have much growing up but we had each other. There was strict discipline in our household with an emphasis on getting a university degree and pursuing a good career.
The way I see it is if my parents came here with nothing in their early 20s, after having their home and businesses taken away by a communist government, but still made something out of their lives then it’s possible for all in a country like Australia. And this isn’t an isolated story. Many of my friends that I grew up with of Vietnamese, Cambodian, Lao and even Iraqi Assyrian backgrounds have similar stories. Which goes to my point that I truly believe it’s a culture thing.
I don’t dispute that the historical treatment of our First Nations people is appaling. But reverse racism isn’t the way to go about it. Malaysia for example were adamant on affirmative action that would benefit the native Malays which is why Singapore exists.
The comparison I was trying to draw is that race based policies creates division which is why I don’t agree with the voice.
Look I’ve stated my arguments in a respectful manner. I know it’s controversial as all political matters are. But that doesn’t mean I don’t want to see our indigenous people be successful. We need to be honest with ourselves to get down to the root cause of the problem. Historical injustice is a terrible thing, but it’s no excuse to be a bad parent.
I found this here https://www.pc.gov.au/ongoing/indige...ure-report.pdf
Expenditure estimates in 2015-16
In 2015-16, total (Australian Government plus State/Territory governments) direct
expenditure was $556.1 billion.
The total direct expenditure on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians was
estimated to be $33.4 billion (6.0 per cent of the total) comprising:
• $6.0 billion on Indigenous specific expenditure
• $27.4 billion on mainstream expenditure.
The remainder ($522.7 billion) was expenditure on non-Indigenous Australians.
Noel Pearson (YES) spoke at the Press Club address while Warren Mundine (NO) spoke yesterday and Noel had some compelling arguments which I thought were more convincing than Mundine.
Pearson said that rheumatic heart disease kills 2 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people every week yet he looked up Hansard and not once did the Fed MP for the area (28 years holding that post) raised this matter. He hopes a Yes Voice will close the gap.
Also not one square inch of land was lost because of Mabo and Wick.
Also the Parliament has the power to make laws wrt to Aboriginal & TS Islander matters so that's where the detail is, to be decided by Parliament.
Worth watching/listening to both sessions on ABC iView
In all honesty, it's not right to be comparing migrants with the Aboriginals. Even if you were to compare the most disadvantaged type of immigrants, like refugees from war torn countries, it is not a fair comparison. One is a group of people who could be from any type of "original" situation that were suddenly forced to flee their countries, rich, poor, hardworking , bludgers, etc... it's a mixed bag.
The other is clearly a race that had been "vanquished" as a result of colonialism. They didn't go anywhere, they stayed where they were and had their lands taken away from them.
And based on those figures that equates to $44k spent on each Aborigine/Torres Strait Islander and $22k on other Australians.Quote:
Originally Posted by fud
They did have their lands taken away. This is something many South East Asian refugees can also relate to when our parents’ birth countries were overtaken by communist governments. Even though I know this is not the fairest comparison, you don’t have the right to call my story as privileged. If you saw how we made ends meet with what we had, you certainly wouldn’t call it privileged.
I respect all opinions on this debate, but I don’t appreciate yes voters labelling no voters as misinformed, ignorant and racist. I have my reasons and they are drawn from my lived experiences. I can assure you that many in the working class suburbs especially those that grew up in areas with a high concentration of housing commission estates have a similar opinion as mine and this is Labor heartland. We faced disadvantage and racism. But a victim mentality will keep you in that disadvantaged state. Perseverance and hard work will lift you out.
Very well put, bro. Each to their own, after all that's why it's a referendum.Quote:
Originally Posted by thefatness
I am somewhat swayed by what has happened in the US. Black people having an easier time getting into college had a side effect of pushing out other minority groups from having a fair shot. It wasn't intentional, but it is a real side effect nonetheless. It boils down to being a battle between minority groups for the limited leeway provided to minority groups in general.
That said, I am not totally convinced either way yet.
This:Quote:
Originally Posted by rooter
Albanese is a patronising bastard on this issue. Dutton is just a bastard.
I’m looking at some of the absolute creatures on the “no” side of the campaign and I have to vote yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by priapus1966
Peta Credlin, Peter Dutton, John (I sold Commbank for less than it makes in a quarter) Howard and Anthony Mundine.
And now you have Sky News reporters admitting the Coalition are only campaigning for “No” because they want to score political points against Albanese.
The world and societies have gone nuts. We have transformed Charles Darwin theory on 'Survival of Fittest' into 'Surival of the Weakest'. All these fucked up movements like the voice, pride, cancel culture, feminists, gender diversity, climate change, capital punishment activists, vegans, me too, LGBTQI, gender pronouns, religious sects ad nauseam are changing the natural order of things. They think they are creating a better and safer world but that is far from it, in a few decades time we won't recognise society because it will be all screwed up.
So the weaker and smaller you are, the more power, more control, a greater voice, and more privileges and money you get. It's a joke and it's wrong! If there's ever a WW3, it won't be the fucken small, weak under represented minority groups taking arms and risking their lives for country.
It's fucked!!!...but it is what it is.
Sorry Charles Darwin's for screwing up your theory.