Discussion The Random Discussion Thread

[phantom13]

The highlighted above is an absolutely huge problem in many Aboriginal communities. It just is.

Having a conversation regarding improving the lives of Aboriginal people in Australia absolutely needs to include those facts. Otherwise it's pointless.

Only way to get anywhere is to get real... or all you're left with is a bunch of intellectual masturbating that in the end will benefit nobody.

Mentioning that it's a huge problem doesn't have to blanket all Indigenous Australians.... at all. That would be incredibly stupid.

So is ignoring it.

Yeh, if you read on i acknowledge that.

 

[CursingFijian]

True Believer asked why a YES vote is important.

My answer would be that it's a very important step if Australia is going to heal it's racial divisions. And not just for the indigenous community, but for the non-indigenous community as well.

Acknowledging that there was a population living on these wonderful lands before the first fleet arrived isn't a fabrication. Acknowledgement may be a small step for some but a monumental step for others. It's NOT enough, in my opinion, for that acknowledgement to be just a loose promise. It's NOT enough to say that we will promise to respect your culture, your traditions, your customs and your rights, moving forward. There are too many selfish, greedy and ill motivated people AND corporations that will run rough shod over those rights because they aren't embodied anywhere.

Having a mechanism to speak directly to power brokers about community investment initiatives can have a deep, lasting and positive impact on communities. It changes the way they feel about initiatives and is more likely to result in better outcomes. We ALREADY know this, and there are many people already trying to incorporate community advice in community initiatives. But also, there are many who still don't, because they don't acknowledge it's importance.

Imagine the British monarchy directing Victorians to host the Commonwealth Games.

I feel tremendously lucky in the sense that Fiji was given a voice to Parliament a long time ago, nearly 150 years ago, before Australian independence. I think it has helped Fijians to cultivate a strong sense of pride in our culture, traditions and customs. Not everything is perfect, and we have had to change and adapt as our society modernizes, but we do have a strong innate sense of self-worth which grounds as we navigate the world. It took generations though to get to where we are, and our growth and development is far from finished.

 

[SaintsofSteel]

I’ll have a crack at wading through the stereotypical racist tropes in here to answer your question.

Explain how the voice will change any of those things!!

The voice could provide actual recommendations from those in the community about how best to support those with substance abuse issues, spousal abuse issues, attendance issues etc. and implement programs or pathways that the communities themselves more likely would support and adhere to to assist in improving these conditions.

White Australia has had what, 120ish years to improve the welfare of Indigenous Australia and continues to fail, maybe listen to them for change.

I’ll tell you a little story. In a previous job I worked with prisons vic in project management. As part of this role I did engagement with the local indigenous community about project investment for diversionary pathways. Think of it as a mini voice providing recommendations to keep young indigenous kids out of prison and youth remand. As part of this a nominal percentage of new project budget was set aside to assist in implementing recommendations provided by local indigenous elders. Now I’m the past this fund was used to give already incarcerated indigenous people a men’s shed or a yarning circle. On this project the elders engaged with their community and requested a community basketball court in a remote town be built and some ongoing funding provided to run a community hoops comp, employ some indigenous locals to build it and run the comp.

The rate of offending in this town dropped substantially in the two years after this program was implemented. Direct advice from community leading to direct positive outcomes and ironically the total cost was about half of what we would have utilized as well.

The biggest misunderstanding of the indigenous is there communities and ideals are so diverse. There a hundreds of differing tribes spread across the country all with their own language and belief systems. They are not like the Moari people where they all speak the same language and have the same spiritual beliefs. Even within tribes they had clan systems where historically they held differing belief systems. Now there is the disparity between the remote rural communities and the urbanised indigineous folk - the only similiarity is they identify as aborignal.

The current issue now is that the funding is so 'piece meal'. Every indigenous community has their own association, or social justice or not for profit has their own funding models and then theres the state and federal indigineous organisations. Very little of the funding actually gets to the ground level its always swallowed up by administration or what I call the 'black mafia'. The 'black mafia' is what ATSIC and the Land Councils created where certain more educated families exploited the funding models and lived like Kings whilst the rest of their own community and often family lived in poverty.

I lived and worked in remote NT communities for 15 years and what I saw and experienced up there the average Australian is not ready for. It was akin to 'war zones' and in a lot of instances there is very little importance given to life, let alone the foundations that address the social issues. Thats not to say every state, area or community is the same, but its just to provide a basis of how diverse these issues are.

I am all for improving their standard of living ect but I just dont see how the Voice can fairly encapsulate every differing indigenous groups views or needs. All that will occur is that you will have a few well educated indigineous folk speaking on behalf for the rest of their people, that they might not even understand or represent. In any event I will be voting YES as although I have no trust in that it will improve things, I do hope one day it might and change has to start somewhere?

 

[South of the Yarra]

The biggest misunderstanding of the indigenous is there communities and ideals are so diverse. There a hundreds of differing tribes spread across the country all with their own language and belief systems. They are not like the Moari people where they all speak the same language and have the same spiritual beliefs. Even within tribes they had clan systems where historically they held differing belief systems. Now there is the disparity between the remote rural communities and the urbanised indigineous folk - the only similiarity is they identify as aborignal.

The current issue now is that the funding is so 'piece meal'. Every indigenous community has their own association, or social justice or not for profit has their own funding models and then theres the state and federal indigineous organisations. Very little of the funding actually gets to the ground level its always swallowed up by administration or what I call the 'black mafia'. The 'black mafia' is what ATSIC and the Land Councils created where certain more educated families exploited the funding models and lived like Kings whilst the rest of their own community and often family lived in poverty.

I lived and worked in remote NT communities for 15 years and what I saw and experienced up there the average Australian is not ready for. It was akin to 'war zones' and in a lot of instances there is very little importance given to life, let alone the foundations that address the social issues. Thats not to say every state, area or community is the same, but its just to provide a basis of how diverse these issues are.

I am all for improving their standard of living ect but I just dont see how the Voice can fairly encapsulate every differing indigenous groups views or needs. All that will occur is that you will have a few well educated indigineous folk speaking on behalf for the rest of their people, that they might not even understand or represent. In any event I will be voting YES as although I have no trust in that it will improve things, I do hope one day it might and change has to start somewhere?

Can I ask what Aboriginal communities you worked in that were 'war zones'?

 

[PoppedCorn]

 

[bergholt]

It's honestly the most basic thing imaginable. It just makes it so that new governments don't rip up the work of the last lot.

Nah because the constitutional change doesn't say they can't do that. If one government appoints Lydia Thorpe to run The Voice body and the next doesn't like her, they'll just kick her out and replace her with someone more amenable to them. Not to mention the structure can and will change just like other government departments.

I'm voting yes because why not but I don't think it's going to make much difference, just add more bureaucracy.

 

[bergholt]

For me this is really easy. Do I feel in my heart Aboriginal and Torres Straight Islanders should be recognised in our constitution?

Completely agree, but the easy way to do this would have been to form The Voice with legislation and have a referendum on adding specific recognition of indigenous people to the constitution. No-one except a small minority votes against that, there's no way to campaign against it.

 

[Sun Ra]

Completely agree, but the easy way to do this would have been to form The Voice with legislation and have a referendum on adding specific recognition of indigenous people to the constitution. No-one except a small minority votes against that, there's no way to campaign against it.

Yeah, but I think they want / asked for The Voice to be in the constitution as well as recognition. So future govts couldn't get rid
of it without another referendum.

 

[Parkysp]

Good discussion and I'm one that is campaigning hard for a Yes. I don't have the misgiving of the constitution changing and it mandating a voice because at least it needs to be addressed by each new parliament. Peter Dutton would actually need to explain what his actual 'I'd legislate a voice' actually means going into an election. A question that the media has let him off Scott free on BTW.

As I said I'm campaigning hard but of course I have some doubts on if it will work but again I say what is the alternative plan to help change the massive difference in life outcomes? It's just NO and you're supposed to walk away.

A Wiradyuri elder told me about an early childhood intervention reading program that was cut at the stroke of a pen. A program that was having great results with literacy outcomes. it also funded food after school for the kids. Successful and money well spent but it was gone. A local voice feeding into regional into a voice could potentially have a bit more grunt so that a program like that doesn't get cut by a bean counter at a far away desk.

It might not make a difference and still be gone but all I know is that under the current system it did happen and the kids suffered for it so I'll give another approach a go.

 

[bergholt]

Yeah, but I think they want / asked for The Voice to be in the constitution as well as recognition. So future govts couldn't get rid
of it without another referendum.

Yeah, doesn't mean that was the right request though. Future governments control its budget and structure so they can hamstring it however they want. Putting it in the constitution means it's less likely to even exist and only gives it very very minimal protection from political interference.

 

[Sun Ra]

Yeah, doesn't mean that was the right request though. Future governments control its budget and structure so they can hamstring it however they want. Putting it in the constitution means it's less likely to even exist and only gives it very very minimal protection from political interference.

Since the statecraft purpose of the Voice is to present ourselves to the world as a settler nation redefining itself through an act of dialectical synthesis, the Yes campaign is loaded with a purpose that may not be in its best interests. Quite possibly, many in the government now wish they had handled it differently, as a No vote will be an international disaster for this country.

 

[True Believer]

Since the statecraft purpose of the Voice is to present ourselves to the world as a settler nation redefining itself through an act of dialectical synthesis, the Yes campaign is loaded with a purpose that may not be in its best interests. Quite possibly, many in the government now wish they had handled it differently, as a No vote will be an international disaster for this country.

I agree with a lot of what you have said there, except that last statement. A no vote will not be an international disaster. Nations, like individuals, nearly always look after their own interests first, so it will be business as usual. Always back the horse call Self-interest, in any race. In fact, I would go further and state that I think the rest of the world gives zero ****s about what happens in Australia.

 

[Sun Ra]

I agree with a lot of what you have said there, except that last statement. A no vote will not be an international disaster. Nations, like individuals, nearly always look after their own interests first, so it will be business as usual. Always back the horse call Self-interest, in any race. In fact, I would go further and state that I think the rest of the world gives zero *s about what happens in Australia.

Great answer ......... but why does backing self interest = voting NO ? It's no skin off your nose mate.

 

[SaintsofSteel]

Can I ask what Aboriginal communities you worked in that were 'war zones'?

Some were worst than others but I worked at Port Keats (Wadeye), Groote Eylandt (Ayangkidarrba) and Maningrida. I also did relieving stints at Roper River (Ngukurr), Borroloola (Burrulula), Mutijulu and Maranboy (Barunga). All had there moments and had the potential to be very dangerous places for ALL those present. I saw more death, violence and human destruction in those 15 years, than some would see in tours of war zones.

As an example I had a female friend come to visit when I was in Katherine in the late 90's, who had previously lived in Cape Town SA as an exhange student. She said she felt safer as a female walking around Cape Town than she did in Katherine NT. Thats not to appear racist that was just the reality! How many other country towns (apart from northern Australia) were unsafe to walk about during day light hours? Not too many I would suggest.

 

[pebblesofsand]

Peter Dutton - "If you don't know, then vote No." Don't go out and learn or attempt to understand it - just vote No.

And unfortunately, that's how a fair portion of the voters think (or don't think).

Socrates was all over the failings of democracies and nothing has changed.

 

[True Believer]

Great answer ......... but why does backing self interest = voting NO ? It's no skin off your nose mate.

I didn't say self-interest = a no vote. I said a no vote will not equal international disaster BECAUSE of the self-interest (of the international community). Even if they think we are despicable because of a no vote (highly unlikely), they will not respond in any way that conflicts with whatever is in their own best interests. Personally, I think we overinflate our own importance. I think most of the international community don't know and don't much care what is happening in Australia.

 

[bergholt]

People minimising the s**t people go through is probably the shittiest thing of all. I would be in permanent rage if it was me.

Totally agree. I think the point of this whole discussion though is that it's completely possible to agree with the shitty nature of the situation without agreeing that the current proposed solution is the best way to help - or even that it will help at all.

 

[bergholt]

Peter Dutton - "If you don't know, then vote No." Don't go out and learn or attempt to understand it - just vote No.

And unfortunately, that's how a fair portion of the voters think (or don't think).

Socrates was all over the failings of democracies and nothing has changed.

That's why it's the responsibility of the government/yes campaign to do a good job of selling it.

Bemoan the failings of people all you like but they are who they are: normal everyday people who don't pay much attention to politics, and because of the atomised and stressful nature of capitalist society don't have the spare capacity to put themselves into someone else's shoes.

Only two options: either foment revolution to fix capitalism/society; or play the game the way it's set up. At the moment the yes campaign is doing neither.

 

[Dard Ball Get]

Holy f*ck.

 

[phantom13]

That's why it's the responsibility of the government/yes campaign to do a good job of selling it.

Bemoan the failings of people all you like but they are who they are: normal everyday people who don't pay much attention to politics, and because of the atomised and stressful nature of capitalist society don't have the spare capacity to put themselves into someone else's shoes.

Only two options: either foment revolution to fix capitalism/society; or play the game the way it's set up. At the moment the yes campaign is doing neither.

I take issue with the concept that something that is holistically intended to be beneficial for your fellow man needs selling and the concept that you as an individual have no responsibility yourself but I also get your point.

 

[gringo2011]

The highlighted above is an absolutely huge problem in many Aboriginal communities. It just is.

Having a conversation regarding improving the lives of Aboriginal people in Australia absolutely needs to include those facts. Otherwise it's pointless.

Only way to get anywhere is to get real... or all you're left with is a bunch of intellectual masturbating that in the end will benefit nobody.

Mentioning that it's a huge problem doesn't have to blanket all Indigenous Australians.... at all. That would be incredibly stupid.

So is ignoring it.

I don't think anyone thinks that there aren't huge issues in some communities but a huge part is disfunction that was created by poorly thought out policy in the past. Taking people from their families and institutionalising them, molesting them in some cases, removing them from their culture and land, not even considering them proper citizens until the 1960s.

It's not like "just get over it" and move on is an answer now. Psychology acknowledges generational trauma that gets passed through DNA. There are no easy answers but not trying to do something is also not a great option. Otherwise it just continues a broken cycle.

The voice isn't going to fix everything and maybe nothing but it gives them some feeling of agency in their own affairs. Aboriginals used to have to apply to move around to their protectorate in current living generations.

We helped create the mess so own some part in helping to fix it IMO.

 

[StFly]

Holy f*ck.

You know it's stupid money when the draw back is "I thought we were passed having backseats...".

Here's to an eventual 911 that comes with a separation booster so you can go transatlantic on BYO ramp.

 

[gringo2011]

Yeah, doesn't mean that was the right request though. Future governments control its budget and structure so they can hamstring it however they want. Putting it in the constitution means it's less likely to even exist and only gives it very very minimal protection from political interference.

Some governments completely removed any representation so I guess it makes it law that you can't just remove and not replace it at least. It seems more symbolic that we are handing over some control to them.

 

[gringo2011]

You know it's stupid money when the draw back is "I thought we were passed having backseats...".

Here's to an eventual 911 that comes with a separation booster so you can go transatlantic on BYO ramp.

You'd think it would get a bit floaty being that light weight. I'd want some spoilers to push the wheels down but you'd loose the looks. I'd love to try one of the electric conversion ones they do in the States.

 

[StFly]

You'd think it would get a bit floaty being that light weight. I'd want some spoilers to push the wheels down but you'd loose the looks. I'd love to try one of the electric conversion ones they do in the States.

I drive a Jazz as it's just lil ol me, and that being 850kg I imagine on a wintery day with wind gusts it'd rock a bit like the Jazz, and I could see it with fins instead of a spoiler to try and drag it down, given you could probably assist with the air cooling of the motor with some engineering involved.

Looking backwards in one doesn't seem a high priority to car about use, so long as it looks pretty...