OT: Current Affairs and Politics

[Happy MEel]

So what you’re saying is that if the legislation for the voice was drafted and released, then Dutton et al would have been happy and it would have passed ?

Peter Dutton’s push for draft bill before voice referendum risks confusing voters, experts warn

Labor cannot specify exactly how the body would work in future as it would be subject to the government of the day, expert group members say

www.theguardian.com

That the voters, who were in charge of assessing a simple two part change to the constitution to a) recognise and b) form a committee to be consulted apon matters which impact them, would then be able to pour over pages and pages of legalese like this to help them decide ?

ABORIGINAL AND TORRES STRAIT ISLANDER COMMISSION ACT 1989

Like I’ve said, I would have gone to a referendum on the question of recognition and legislated a voice. If and when it proves it’s worth I would then consider the value in putting in the constitution at a later date.

 

[Iamback]

Voted yes probably should have votes no after speaking with a few people and the fact most yes votes were from the already privileged & Easter sub wankers..

The same people who are likely sitting as the voice as opposed to those in the outback communities

 

[Gary Gutful]

Then you took the day off.

Closet campaigner for No I bet.

Herding up your bogans!

“Free Crownie and croc scaring for a “no” vote, take a picture of your secret ballot, as proof…nah, you’re allowed to”

“Only secret for Yes voters”

The No vote didn’t need any campaigners up here. Yes was about as popular as a fart in an elevator.

 

[Gary Gutful]

No use in asking me to give details on how they would do this.

*Because I don’t actually know.

 

[Bandwagon]

Fair enough, but I’d suggest that the detail provided was insufficient.

I think for some, that genuinely was an issue, but yes it was a widespread complaint. I just don't buy into it that for most it wasn't much more than a slogan rather than a genuine issue.

The outcome tends to suggest that was the case.

I don't believe that necessarily holds any water. Because it ties the outcome to truth in the campaign slogan, when as I've argued I don't believe that many of those whose voting intention was based upon the lack of detail really bothered to seek out the detail on offer beyond that which confirmed their view.

In that regard I think all we can glean from the outcome is that it was an effective campaign point. Of that evidence abounds. Which in turn likely means that the yes campaign didn't do enough to ensure that the level of detail that is out there was actually heard.

 

[Gronk]

Most the rich white people in the inner city suburbs pushed all the Aboriginals out mate. Look at what they did to Redfern for example.
Wouldn't it be better to give them some of those spots back?

It’s a bit like saying that people who seek meaningful action on climate change should walk everywhere otherwise how dare you.

That argument might work at the pub after a skinfull, but not in the real world.

 

[Bandwagon]

*Because I don’t actually know.

I'm sure he knows.

It's just that in explaining it, it would make that rambling dribble appear even more insane than it is.

 

[Gronk]

Like I’ve said, I would have gone to a referendum on the question of recognition and legislated a voice. If and when it proves it’s worth I would then consider the value in putting in the constitution at a later date.

There’s a reason why it needed to be set in stone. Funny enough, fir the same reason why people apparently voted no. Politicians can’t be trusted.

$534 million cut to Indigenous programs

Over the next five years $534 million will be cut from Indigenous programs administered by the Prime Minister and Cabinet and Health portfolios.

www.abc.net.au

 

[Twizzle]

such a disappointing result

 

[hindy111]

It’s a bit like saying that people who seek meaningful action on climate change should walk everywhere otherwise hiw dare you.

That might work at the pub after a skinfull, but nit in the real world.

Not really. They where all pushed out of the wealthier suburbs. There is a big divide between the rich and the poor. Let's be honest. Wealthier suburbs are generally nicer and safer and in better locations. And if we want to talk equality and opportunities then we need to look at busting this up and have everyone start on equal playing fields.

 

[The Silverdale Phantom]

Not really. They where all pushed out of the wealthier suburbs. There is a big divide between the rich and the poor. Let's be honest. Wealthier suburbs are generally nicer and safer and in better locations. And if we want to talk equality and opportunities then we need to look at busting this up and have everyone start on equal playing fields.

It’s still capitalism brother.

The wealthy and privileged get to go to nice schools, drive the best cars and A1 health care. Never have to work, lead better lives, get the best lawyers etc etc.

And we end up with kardashians and will smith.

There’s no even playing field. There’s no meaningful opportunity for 98% of people in this country. We are servants.

Thus the hard left said this referendum was sham. A distraction. Morris dancing around structural inequality regardless of race, gender, culture etc.

Basically the voice was a means to box in and appropriate indigenous people into the system.

A system they argue is ultimately unsustainable for different reasons and somewhat inhumane.

 

[Gronk]

Not really. They where all pushed out of the wealthier suburbs. There is a big divide between the rich and the poor. Let's be honest. Wealthier suburbs are generally nicer and safer and in better locations. And if we want to talk equality and opportunities then we need to look at busting this up and have everyone start on equal playing fields.

Wedge politics is not new or clever.

 

[Happy MEel]

I think for some, that genuinely was an issue, but yes it was a widespread complaint. I just don't buy into it that for most it wasn't much more than a slogan rather than a genuine issue.



I don't believe that necessarily holds any water. Because it ties the outcome to truth in the campaign slogan, when as I've argued I don't believe that many of those whose voting intention was based upon the lack of detail really bothered to seek out the detail on offer beyond that which confirmed their view.

In that regard I think all we can glean from the outcome is that it was an effective campaign point. Of that evidence abounds. Which in turn likely means that the yes campaign didn't do enough to ensure that the level of detail that is out there was actually heard.

I’d say there was an expectation on the yes campaign/side of politics to provide the detail as the party seeking constitutional reform, and when I say detail, I mean more than broad sweeping objectives of the voice. Sure, that can be the wording in the constitution but exactly how that would be achieved, its composition and the scope of issues it will advise on, isn’t an unreasonable amount of detail to expect.

 

[Happy MEel]

There’s a reason why it needed to be set in stone. Funny enough, fir the same reason why people apparently voted no. Politicians can’t be trusted.

$534 million cut to Indigenous programs

Over the next five years $534 million will be cut from Indigenous programs administered by the Prime Minister and Cabinet and Health portfolios.

www.abc.net.au

Do we need to set something in stone (the voice as a separate thing to recognition) that we have no idea will be effective? Is there a strong enough evidence base to confirm that the Voice (as worded in this referendum), is the absolute right way forward?

There have been plenty of indigenous Councils and advisory bodies to government in the past, why is this one the silver bullet that is going to close the gap?

If that evidence does exist then the Yes campaign did a piss poor job of promoting it.

 

[Soren Lorenson]

Wedge politics is not new or clever.

Maybe a better way would have been for the government to frame it differently. Not take a position as such, but simply say that this is the proposal that the Aboriginal people have come to us with, and now it’s up to the public to decide. Then it would have been Dutton v First Nations people, not Labor v Liberal. I don’t know. What a cock up.

 

[Avenger]

You reckon that Serbians should be recognised in the constitution of Kosovo ? Or are are they all Kosovars and anything else would be tokenism ?

Constitution of Kosovo - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

I reckon Kosovo is Serbia. Thats what I reckon.

 

[Happy MEel]

The No vote didn’t need any campaigners up here. Yes was about as popular as a fart in an elevator.

What if it’s your own fart?

 

[Happy MEel]

Maybe a better way would have been for the government to frame it differently. Not take a position as such, but simply say that this is the proposal that the Aboriginal people have come to us with, and now it’s up to the public to decide. Then it would have been Dutton v First Nations people, not Labor v Liberal. I don’t know. What a cock up.

Actually yep, that would have been smarter.

 

[The Silverdale Phantom]

Maybe a better way would have been for the government to frame it differently. Not take a position as such, but simply say that this is the proposal that the Aboriginal people have come to us with, and now it’s up to the public to decide. Then it would have been Dutton v First Nations people, not Labor v Liberal. I don’t know. What a cock up.

Not a bad point.

 

[Bandwagon]

I’d say there was an expectation on the yes campaign/side of politics to provide the detail as the party seeking constitutional reform, and when I say detail, I mean more than broad sweeping objectives of the voice. Sure, that can be the wording in the constitution but exactly how that would be achieved, its composition and the scope of issues it will advise on, isn’t an unreasonable amount of detail to expect.

Both those issues are addressed in the link I gave you.

Composition.

• Members of the Voice would be Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander, according to the standard three part test.
• Members would be chosen from each of the states, territories and the Torres Strait Islands.
• The Voice would have specific remote representatives as well as representation for the mainland Torres Strait Islander population.
• The Voice will have balanced gender representation at the national level.
• Members of the Voice would be selected by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, not appointed by the Executive Government.
• Members would serve on the Voice for a fixed period of time, to ensure regular accountability to their communities.
• To ensure cultural legitimacy, the way that members of the Voice are chosen would suit the wishes of local communities and would be determined through the post-referendum process.

Scope of issues

• The Voice would make representations to the Parliament and the Executive Government on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.