OT: Current Affairs and Politics

[Gary Gutful]

What if it’s your own fart?

Oh, that’s fine.

 

[JokerEel]

https://www.news.com.au/national/politics/the-voice-referendum-live-updates/news-story/3d6d514a6d9685b7997f8aa3e8cfac54

I wonder if the areas with the high % of Yes had a low % of First Nation People

 

[Gary Gutful]

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.

Hard to do that when Albo made a commitment to implement the Uluru Statement.

 

[Happy MEel]

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.

Composition
- How many members will comprise the voice?
- Would there be a process to determine the most suitable candidates the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander population would select from? If so, what does that look like?
- What is a “fixed period”? If a particular membership isn’t working and is becoming detrimental, what would be the process of managing that composition?

Scope
- “Matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples” is a broad statement and doesn’t really provide any useful information whatsoever.
- Who determines these “matters” (is it the Gov seeking advice from the voice on particular matters it deems appropriate, is it the voice setting it’s own agenda and making representations to Government, is it a mix of both, are there parameters or terms of reference that will guide the types of matters it deals with?)
- What do these representations look like in a practical sense (are they submissions, speeches in Parliament, collaborative working groups etc)

Having worked in government for almost 20 years now, I can tell you that all of these things are important.

 

[Noise]

Yea that ‘Scope’ statement is extremely vague.

 

[The Silverdale Phantom]

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.

I think there was a bit of hubris at the start when the polls showed 66% in favour.

I think there’s an argument that in a better economy, it would have got over the line.

People are nervous and untrusting these days.

Has albo done anything for working people? He’s lucky Dutton is so unelectable.

 

[Happy MEel]

I think there was a bit of hubris at the start when the polls showed 66% in favour.

I think there’s an argument that in a better economy, it would have got over the line.

People are nervous and untrusting these days.

Has albo done anything for working people? He’s lucky Dutton is so unelectable.

Yep, also true.

 

[strider]

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

Zero f**ks what Dutton says or does .... he is just the interim numpty you put in after losing govt so that the next person is " better than f**kin Dutton"

Recognition == simple

The committee/body/lobby group/whatever the f**k you wanna call it is not .... its clearly aimed at solving problems that are clearly hard to solve .... so come up with something concrete to show what/how/why its gonna solve before setting it in stone .... this is really not a unreasonable expectation

 

[Bandwagon]

Composition
- How many members will comprise the voice?
- Would there be a process to determine the most suitable candidates the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander population would select from? If so, what does that look like?
- What is a “fixed period”? If a particular membership isn’t working and is becoming detrimental, what would be the process of managing that composition?

All TBA, for sure. Again I suggest that the level of detail required is subjective, you could have those details, and still want for more. Short of having the complete legislation drafted and passed there will always be "more detail" that can be asked for.

Scope
- “Matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples” is a broad statement and doesn’t really provide any useful information whatsoever.

I disagree, take it at face value, to me it says it's very broad and all encompassing, so essentially if it impacts ATSI people they may advise on it. ( or be asked to advise on it ) or even be asked if it does impact ATSI people and in what way.

I would imagine that as part of the consultation process with pretty much all legislation, the parliament would ask the Voice for input, just as it does with stakeholders now.

 

[strider]

I wonder when does the cow running QLD get her reality check.

She is pretty much the only tyrant left ... almost all the other politicians, health merkins, police merkins have run for the hills ... move on to your next cushy gig before what you did is shown up as f**ked

 

[Soren Lorenson]

Hard to do that when Albo made a commitment to implement the Uluru Statement.

Yeah true, in hindsight he made a promise he had no control over keeping.

 

[the phantom menace]

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.

I think they did - or tried to. Then (after the Aston by-election loss) Dutton locked in as a hard No, and his own shadow Attorney General Julian Lesser even resigned his role/higher wage in protest at the cheap politics.

Then it would have been Dutton v First Nations people, not Labor v Liberal. I don’t know. What a cock up.

That's kind of how it was/is from my eyes.

I think Labor only got invovled at all/as they did, because when Dutton and his media/political cronies promoted confusion and division from April they were wiping the floor with the First Nations People in the Yes campaign (who we have discussed and agreed are not political strategists. And yes, ultimately a sad and disappointing cock-up that the case wasn't made strongly or clearly enough to convince most over the preceding years and months.

 

[Happy MEel]

Zero f**ks what Dutton says or does .... he is just the interim numpty you put in after losing govt so that the next person is " better than f**kin Dutton"

Recognition == simple

The committee/body/lobby group/whatever the f**k you wanna call it is not .... its clearly aimed at solving problems that are clearly hard to solve .... so come up with something concrete to show what/how/why its gonna solve before setting it in stone .... this is really not a unreasonable expectation

100%…and this could be an unpopular comment to make, but “because it came from our First Nations people involved in the Uluṟu Statement” isnt the sole piece of justification we should be using to make this decision.

 

[Happy MEel]

All TBA, for sure. Again I suggest that the level of detail required is subjective, you could have those details, and still want for more. Short of having the complete legislation drafted and passed there will always be "more detail" that can be asked for.



I disagree, take it at face value, to me it says it's very broad and all encompassing, so essentially if it impacts ATSI people they may advise on it. ( or be asked to advise on it ) or even be asked if it does impact ATSI people and in what way.

I would imagine that as part of the consultation process with pretty much all legislation, the parliament would ask the Voice for input, just as it does with stakeholders now.

I guess that’s the heart of the matter. Some people are happy to take it at face value, some are cautious and want to know the ins and outs regarding important decisions like this and others are merkins.

 

[strider]

Closet campaigner for No I bet.

Interesting - there must be an enormous closset somewhere with all the no campaigners. Thats or there simply wasnt any money sunk into it...... i did not see a single No campaigner or even a sign at any polling place i went to or past yesterday.

I went into 2 .... first to help older relos at theirs - there were probably 10 Yes campaigners outside and the usual 20-30 signs (some of which were AEC purple - high non english area, but whatever) ... second went to local school, 5 campaigners and again about 20-30 signs (no purple here, more english speaking area) ....... neither place had a single No person or sign

Probably drove past about half a dozen other polling places .... not a No sign in sight

 

[Gronk]

The committee/body/lobby group/whatever the f**k you wanna call it is not .... its clearly aimed at solving problems that are clearly hard to solve .... so come up with something concrete to show what/how/why its gonna solve before setting it in stone .... this is really not a unreasonable expectation

Here lies the problem. You are asking for the impossible outcome. When you place such a high bar and you know that it is unachievable, it becomes highly mischievous and that is exactly what Dutton knew.

The amendment read as follows


The proposed alteration to the constitution:

Chapter IX Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples 129 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice
In recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia:
1: There shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice;
2: The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice may make representations to the Parliament and the Executive Government of the Commonwealth on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples;
3: The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws with respect to matters relating to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, including its composition, functions, powers and procedures.

Point 3 means a lot and falls in line with everything else in the constitution. The constitution provides direction, however the government of the day writes the legislation to make it functional.

So you’re asking for Albanese to give you his legislation. Fine, but what if Dutton or Palmer or Hanson or Nathan Hindmarsh become PM next year ? It could literally all change. Which is their absolute right.

The only constant is that whoever is in power can’t eliminate the voice to parliament. Because it is ( was proposed to be) in the constitution.

Notwithstanding, no government is obligated to take direction from this committee and they certainly have no veto powers. No teeth whatsoever. It was creating a simple permanent conduit to be heard.

 

[strider]

Yeah true, in hindsight he made a promise he had no control over keeping.

And HE made it political by making it a big part of his election acceptance speach announcing it.
We are better than them cos we are gonna do this.

Dont bitch when the other party then goes back at you and accuse only them of politics ...... and dont bitch if the other party are now gonna use your stuff up to make you look shit - cos sure as f**k the other side of politics would take advantage of such a stuff up

 

[Incorrect]

Probably drove past about half a dozen other polling places .... not a No sign in sight

Same here... Saw plenty of staff on hand telling people how to vote Yes, but not a soul telling people to vote No....

 

[strider]

Here lies the problem. You are asking for the impossible outcome. When you place such a high bar and you know that it is unachievable, it becomes highly mischievous and that is exactly what Dutton knew.

The amendment read as follows


The proposed alteration to the constitution:


Point 3 means a lot and falls in line with everything else in the constitution. The constitution provides direction, however the government of the day writes the legislation to make it functional.

So you’re asking for Albanese to give you his legislation. Fine, but what if Dutton or Palmer or Hanson or Nathan Hindmarsh become PM next year ? It could literally all change. Which is their absolute right.

The only constant is that whoever is in power can’t eliminate the voice to parliament. Because it is ( was proposed to be) in the constitution.

Notwithstanding, no government is obligated to take direction from this committee and they certainly have no veto powers. No teeth whatsoever. It was creating a simple permanent conduit to be heard.

Im not asking ... they were doing all the promising to solve the issues when clearly its pretty f**kin hard to achieve. ..... so thats Albos f**k up by conflating the two issues as one

 

[strider]

Here lies the problem. You are asking for the impossible outcome. When you place such a high bar and you know that it is unachievable, it becomes highly mischievous and that is exactly what Dutton knew.

The amendment read as follows


The proposed alteration to the constitution:


Point 3 means a lot and falls in line with everything else in the constitution. The constitution provides direction, however the government of the day writes the legislation to make it functional.

So you’re asking for Albanese to give you his legislation. Fine, but what if Dutton or Palmer or Hanson or Nathan Hindmarsh become PM next year ? It could literally all change. Which is their absolute right.

The only constant is that whoever is in power can’t eliminate the voice to parliament. Because it is ( was proposed to be) in the constitution.

Notwithstanding, no government is obligated to take direction from this committee and they certainly have no veto powers. No teeth whatsoever. It was creating a simple permanent conduit to be heard.

No, i believe its just like an election, where people say we will solve all the problems, often with nothing much to back it up, but they have learnt they have to at least try and give some substance or else people will just go, yeah f**k that

And to be honest, point 3 pretty much says points 1 and 2 dont mean much cos, politicians will do whatever the f**k politicians are gonna do .... and there in lies part of the issue of why it split aboriginals - and likely made other people think wtf