@happyppl did you read this or not really interested ? https://voice.niaa.gov.au/sites/default/files/2021-12/indigenous-voice-…

GuySmiley wrote:

sypkan wrote:

GuySmiley wrote:

sypkan wrote:

and a paragraph for the smiley guy...

"...Thorpe added that people needed to respect there was not a singular homogeneous view across the Indigenous community, saying: “We have different ways that we think would bring this country together. Jacinta has hers and I, through the black grassroots movement in this country, have another way.”..."

No shit Einstein

so why have you been arguing the opposite?

You're none too sharp sykpan, perhaps sharp as a bowling ball.

"...people needed to respect there was (is) not a singular homogeneous view across the Indigenous community ...". Please enlighten me where I've argued against this fundamental principle of Govt engagement with Indigenous groups

" ....Jacinta has hers and I, through the black grassroots movement in this country, have another way.”

That's a fact and precisely what I've previously said. Price is perfectly entitled to her view as an elected Senator as does Thorpe.

Importantly Price, however, has no Aboriginal community backing nor status while Thorpe at least comes from a family rich in action towards community advancement going back to her grandmother.

So what's it going to be sypkan? Agree that Aboriginal communities need to be truly engaged/consulted as implied in "...people needed to respect there was (is) not a singular homogeneous view across the Indigenous community ..." or are you and others going to instead listen to Senator Price who offers an unrepresentative (from the Aboriginal community perspective) singular homogeneous view about the voice?

you started so well...

then the regression set in...

(well... I guess you literally ARE the regressive left...)

"...Importantly Price, however, has no Aboriginal community backing nor status..."

yeh, no community support...

just her family, mundine, and the thousands of aboriginal people that voted her in ...and lydia thorpe it would seem...

no status either...

except for being elected to parliment that is...

how many times have you said this now?

5, 10, 20? ...you know what they say about if you repeat something enough...

becomes 'true' to you I guess

which equates to 'questionable facts' for some of us...

commonly known as bullshit

Reading comprehension isn’t one of your strengths is it?

GuySmiley wrote:

Reading comprehension isn’t one of your strengths is it?

maybe... maybe not...

but when you have written it sooooo many times, I recken I've got it

"Importantly Price, however, has no Aboriginal community backing..."

Try this sypkan

https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/dec/01/jacinta-price-doe…

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-01-09/sydney-to-hobart-yacht-huntress-…

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/612044e7adea672aa3d15464/t/63bb7…

nah, clearly she doesn't speak for lesley turner's 'my people'

""She can’t mean the people I work for – 90 democratically elected Aboriginal men and women from the towns"

the cats on the pay roll...

the same old same old old gaurd cats jacinta price unashamedly criticises...

she speaks for jacinta price's 'my people'

the ones who do not feel represented by the old guard, the ones who possibly didn't get elected

Im pretty sure the 90 weren't elected unaminously, or lesley turner would have made a big song and dance about it

that doesn't make jacinta prices's 'my people' persona non grata... it doesn't make them not aboriginal either... nor not a community in themselves...

they are a community within themselves, and listening to 'all voices' means they are just as entitled to speak and be heard just as much as anyone else

they, are an 'aboriginal community' too, you may not like their politics... but tough titties...

pretty simple stuff... i can't believe you and lesley don't get it, i really really cannot believe it...

I don't believe it, not for a single minute

obtusesness runs thick amogst idealogues

just stop bullshitting and we can move on

From the article I put up on the previous page re Littleproud's electorate.

Inningai woman Suzanne Thompson co chair of the working group or the creation of the Uluru statement is against the voice.

"Because if the 28 Uluru statement working group members weren't heard, I don't know how the rest of the mob are going to be heard."

"I don't think we've arrived at... what is the voice, what does it look like, is it economic, is it about closing the gap... what does it mean for First People's in this country? I think we've got it wrong.

Surely as co chair of the Uluru Statement working group this holds weight.

No, I haven't researched her in anyway and don't know her political allegience.

As this will change the constitution which I consider a big deal for the country, I want detail and so it seems do some of the indigenous. I can't understand why anyone wouldn't want detail.

Supafreak wrote:

@happyppl did you read this or not really interested ? https://voice.niaa.gov.au/sites/default/files/2021-12/indigenous-voice-…

oh supa, how could i read it when i never knew how to access it? however thankyou for the pdf took one look at the page, no1 of 200+ more...argh!!!! no freakin way!
i believe in the common sense dictum of "keep it simple stupid" it's an old saying not haveing a dig at you, ha.
came back on to try to get an answer, so this is my query...
that opinion piece by prof langdon to quote a chapter "politicians and columnists and whatever andrew bolt is are working hard to ensure that by the time we get to the referendum most australians will believe there is no detail. their claims about the deleterious impact of the Voice on our great nation fail one by one as they become wilder and wilder answered in detail by former high court judge kenneth hayne and emminent lawyers including mark liebler and anne twomey. as twomey says, all that is important at the referendum is to know the scope of the power being enshrined. this leaves the function in the hands of the parliament, with the oversite of democratic process. "it puts democracy, not the devil, in charge of the detail". thats my query, what page(s) on the pdf are these details....
this will determine my vote...back to you supa.

Supafreak wrote:

@happyppl did you read this or not really interested ? https://voice.niaa.gov.au/sites/default/files/2021-12/indigenous-voice-…

oh supa, how could i read it when i never knew how to access it? however thankyou for the pdf took one look at the page, no1 of 200+ more...argh!!!! no freakin way!
i believe in the common sense dictum of "keep it simple stupid" it's an old saying not haveing a dig at you, ha.
came back on to try to get an answer, so this is my query...
that opinion piece by prof langdon to quote a chapter "politicians and columnists and whatever andrew bolt is are working hard to ensure that by the time we get to the referendum most australians will believe there is no detail. their claims about the deleterious impact of the Voice on our great nation fail one by one as they become wilder and wilder answered in detail by former high court judge kenneth hayne and emminent lawyers including mark liebler and anne twomey. as twomey says, all that is important at the referendum is to know the scope of the power being enshrined. this leaves the function in the hands of the parliament, with the oversite of democratic process. "it puts democracy, not the devil, in charge of the detail". thats my query, what page(s) on the pdf are these details....
this will determine my vote...back to you supa.

Supafreak wrote:

@happyppl did you read this or not really interested ? https://voice.niaa.gov.au/sites/default/files/2021-12/indigenous-voice-…

oh supa, how could i read it when i never knew how to access it? however thankyou for the pdf took one look at the page, no1 of 200+ more...argh!!!! no freakin way!
i believe in the common sense dictum of "keep it simple stupid" it's an old saying not haveing a dig at you, ha.
came back on to try to get an answer, so this is my query...
that opinion piece by prof langdon to quote a chapter "politicians and columnists and whatever andrew bolt is are working hard to ensure that by the time we get to the referendum most australians will believe there is no detail. their claims about the deleterious impact of the Voice on our great nation fail one by one as they become wilder and wilder answered in detail by former high court judge kenneth hayne and emminent lawyers including mark liebler and anne twomey. as twomey says, all that is important at the referendum is to know the scope of the power being enshrined. this leaves the function in the hands of the parliament, with the oversite of democratic process. "it puts democracy, not the devil, in charge of the detail". thats my query, what page(s) on the pdf are these details....
this will determine my vote...back to you supa.

apologies for triple post my comp plug is wonky, kept loseing connection did'nt realise it sent 3x
cheers for info and your patience.

The thing is happyppl the details have always been there but people aren’t prepared to read it as there is so much detail to read hahaha and that’s only the shortened version . I haven’t read it all myself, I don’t feel the need to .Like I wrote in a reply to sypkan , I’m voting yes on the principle of what the voice is about. If the voice gets up with a yes vote my life won’t change. If the voice doesn’t get up with a no vote my life still won’t change. It won’t affect me one way or the other but it will affect the First Nation indigenous Australians. This hasn’t come about overnight it’s been decades in the planning by highly intelligent First Nations people. They deserve a voice to parliament on issues that affect them and what’s been done in the past clearly hasn’t isn’t working. It won’t be a magical solution but it’s a step in the right direction. If you believe that it’s just another money grab by some individual’s then maybe look closer at who is opposing the voice and what they are afraid of losing.

there is indeed plenty of detail

detail detail detail on the who and how we got to this point, but nothing on the what...

what it is

what it will look like

what the hell the model will actually be

the important bit - for many of us...

just saw albo on 7.30 report

still ducking and weaving on these questions

still couldn't give a straight answer as to whether australians wll know what they are voting for before the referendum

pretty bloody basic stuff

people don't really give a shit about the gravy train to here ...but that is all they are selling...

show us the fucking station!

https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/voice-will-be-subservient-to-th…

What do people think they will lose if the voice to parliament gets a yes ?

I probably won't lose anything

its about what I will gain... disbelief, disheartenment, and frustration...

having worked in 'the industry', trust me, more than half of the shit you hear in the media - from both sides of politics - is so far from the truth the whole shebang seems hopeless

'the narrative' is pure bullshit

I hold nothing but compassion and hope for aboriginal people, and I share sentiments very similar to you re. the voice

but I also share sentiments very similar to price and thorpe about just adding another layer of bureaucracy to what's already existing - and sadly, that seems to be all we are getting

it all just seems a waste of a referendum

like thorpe says, what they are proposing could be done through legislation, and use (save) the referendum for something of more significance

I will definitely not vote no, that is certain, i may vote yes, but it will be for all the wrong reasons

I will more than probably just leave it blank

hopefully labor come up with something i can get behind. but I doubt it... because it appears from labor's current talk on the matter, we won't even know what the bloody thing is

if they don't yet know what it entails, because it is still in development - then just bloody say that!

but they're not even hinting at that, I have now seen linda burney and albanese totally dodge, weave, and refuse to answer the question of whether australians will know what we are voting for before the referendum

happy to be proven wrong

'Plenty of detail' available on the Voice: Megan Davis https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/breakfast/-plenty-of-deta…. It’s only 7 minutes long , it won’t answer all peoples questions but will point you in a direction of what will happen in order to give you the information some are seeking. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megan_Davis

Supafreak wrote:

The thing is happyppl the details have always been there but people aren’t prepared to read it as there is so much detail to read hahaha and that’s only the shortened version . I haven’t read it all myself, I don’t feel the need to .Like I wrote in a reply to sypkan , I’m voting yes on the principle of what the voice is about. If the voice gets up with a yes vote my life won’t change. If the voice doesn’t get up with a no vote my life still won’t change. It won’t affect me one way or the other but it will affect the First Nation indigenous Australians. This hasn’t come about overnight it’s been decades in the planning by highly intelligent First Nations people. They deserve a voice to parliament on issues that affect them and what’s been done in the past clearly hasn’t isn’t working. It won’t be a magical solution but it’s a step in the right direction. If you believe that it’s just another money grab by some individual’s then maybe look closer at who is opposing the voice and what they are afraid of losing.

SF you echo my sentiments totally

The High Court of Australia was authorised in 1901 under s71 of the Constitution, it's establishment and operation didn't start until legislation in the Judiciary Act 1903. In other words the principle of having a High Court came from the Constitution and the detail on how it was composed and it's powers and operation came later from legislation. The Voice is no different. Simply creating a body by legislation without enshrining it in the Constitution means it can be removed by legislation, enshrining it means it would take a referendum to remove it. So you first create the existence of a Voice in the Constitution, then Parliament legislates the detail, after debate, that passes both Houses. Demanding finalisation of detail now is counter productive and a furphy, the principle of having a Voice enshrined in the Constitution is the referendum issue. Dutton is just trying to create a hot mess to confuse and confound, hoping for a political defeat for Labor and because he's a cunt that can't help himself when cunting opportunities arise.

adam12 wrote:

The High Court of Australia was authorised in 1901 under s71 of the Constitution, it's establishment and operation didn't start until legislation in the Judiciary Act 1903. In other words the principle of having a High Court came from the Constitution and the detail on how it was composed and it's powers and operation came later from legislation. The Voice is no different. Simply creating a body by legislation without enshrining it in the Constitution means it can be removed by legislation, enshrining it means it would take a referendum to remove it. So you first create the existence of a Voice in the Constitution, then Parliament legislates the detail, after debate, that passes both Houses. Demanding finalisation of detail now is counter productive and a furphy, the principle of having a Voice enshrined in the Constitution is the referendum issue. Dutton is just trying to create a hot mess to confuse and confound, hoping for a political defeat for Labor and because he's a cunt that can't help himself when cunting opportunities arise.

Thanks for that adam12 , Albo has actually explained the process several times but some ( sky news )choose to ignore this and demand detail now .

adam12 wrote:

The High Court of Australia was authorised in 1901 under s71 of the Constitution, it's establishment and operation didn't start until legislation in the Judiciary Act 1903. In other words the principle of having a High Court came from the Constitution and the detail on how it was composed and it's powers and operation came later from legislation. The Voice is no different. Simply creating a body by legislation without enshrining it in the Constitution means it can be removed by legislation, enshrining it means it would take a referendum to remove it. So you first create the existence of a Voice in the Constitution, then Parliament legislates the detail, after debate, that passes both Houses. Demanding finalisation of detail now is counter productive and a furphy, the principle of having a Voice enshrined in the Constitution is the referendum issue. Dutton is just trying to create a hot mess to confuse and confound, hoping for a political defeat for Labor and because he's a cunt that can't help himself when cunting opportunities arise.

Calling Dutton a cunt is being nice ...
Despicable human ...

yep adam...

but it is still hard to see how it will difer from any number of other advisory bodies already given a run, as any recommendations still just go to the government of the day

much like now...

labor could still give an inkling of how it will work / look

atm they just look cagey as fuck

https://m.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=741577004005631&id=10004460013204…

Hamish "it was pretty easy to find those answers"

Jane Hume "why hasn't the Labor Party made that information freely available?"

Hamish "it's on the internet!"

Seems the Liberals only read pamphlets.#auspol pic.twitter.com/m0tP9CghJT

— Squizz (@SquizzSTK) January 10, 2023

Does anyone think maybe Dutton and the LNP haven’t actually bothered to read the information that has been given to them , even the information given by members of their own party ?

Who the hell claims that any vessel wrecked or washed up on "aboriginal land belongs to the aborigines"?
Some idiot called Michael Mansell.
Doing himself and others no favours...

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-01-12/lidia-thorpe-says-voice-support-…

I think the above pdf and say this The Guardian explainer give enough detail about the proposed Indigenous Voice.

Just wanted to share this interesting Australia Institute article I just found on the Sami parliaments of Norway, Sweden and Finland, which our proposed Indigenous Voice is quite similar in nature to. (Not sure if anyone above has mentioned them.)

Australia Institute wrote:

The Nordic Sami parliaments provide the indigenous people of Norway, Sweden and Finland with a voice in decisions affecting their communities. These parliaments provide an insight for attempts in Australia to provide a similar voice for Australia’s Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.

The Sami (also Sámi or Saami) are indigenous peoples who originate from Sápmi, which encompasses the northern areas of Norway, Sweden and Finland, and the Russian Kola Peninsula. The Finnish, Swedish and Norwegian constitutions all recognise certain rights of the Sami, with Norway and Finland also constitutionally recognising their status as an indigenous people.[1]

The Sami parliaments (Sámediggi) of Finland, Sweden and Norway provide the Sami with a voice in decisions affecting their communities. They have their basis in international recognition of the rights of indigenous people by the UN’s International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Article 27) and the ILO’s Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention (No. 169). The latter includes provisions about states’ obligations to consult indigenous peoples and consider their customs when applying national laws.[2]

The Sami parliaments are not parliaments in the Westminster sense – they do not provide self-government and do not have a formal legislative function. They are mostly consultative bodies whose purpose is to promote and preserve cultural self-determination, covering matters such as language, traditional livelihood, land rights and social wellbeing. They are established by legislation and are elected bodies whose voters must be registered on a Sami electoral roll. The Sami parliaments also represent Sami interests internationally.

The three Sami parliaments have a similar structure with a national assembly elected every four years, an executive board and a committee system, and are housed in their own buildings.[3]

The Finnish Sami Parliament is the oldest. The Constitution of Finland recognises the Sami as an indigenous people and their right to self-regulation regarding their language and culture, including the right to use their own language when associating with authorities. Linguistic rights are also established in the Finnish Language Act.[4] The Act on the Sami Parliament (which also defines a Sami person and the Sami homeland), defines the Sami Parliament’s scope and relations with the Finnish Government.[5]

In safeguarding and promoting the constitutional objectives, the Act provides that the Sami Parliament may ‘make initiatives and proposals to the authorities’, adopt its own procedural rules and represent the Sami in national and international affairs. The Sami Parliament is also empowered to decide, without the right of appeal, the allocation of Sami-designated funds.

The Finnish Government also has obligations under the Act. It is ‘obliged’ to negotiate with the Sami on specific matters, including community planning; land and conservation management; applications for mining licences; the development, teaching and application of Sami languages; and legislative or administrative changes affecting Sami culture. However, the Act does not preclude government authorities from proceeding with matters that have not been negotiated.

The Sami parliaments vary in their ambit. Nordic academics assert that the Norwegian Sami Parliament has greater scope to decide the issues it will pursue and has closer ties to the Norwegian political system. This is because, in addition to Sami parties, national political parties can also put forward candidates for election to the Sami Parliament.[6]

Note the Russian Sami do not have a national Sami parliament. However, they are represented on the Sami Parliamentary Council which is the cooperative body for the Sami parliaments.[7]

“Although we, the Indigenous peoples of the world, live under very diverse conditions, we share a history of colonialism, suppression of language, loss of culture and lands. However, we also share experiences of emancipation, of empowerment, of revival of language and culture.”

- Aili Keskitalo, President of the Sami Parliament of Norway[8]

Sami representation through their parliaments is not without its challenges or limitations, as explained by Professor Bertrus de Villiers from the Curtin Law School in evidence to the parliamentary inquiry into constitutional recognition for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples.[9] However, they do offer examples and provide ideas about how a future voice for Australia’s Indigenous peoples might work. This voice is now being explored through the Australian Government’s Indigenous Voice co-design process to establish a national representative body and regional representative bodies for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.[10]

Good post gsco. Hard to see why people would not want to support it. Other than disingenuous politicking.

Howard, the unflushable turd, lingers on

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/jan/14/peter-duttons-ap…

GuySmiley wrote:

Howard, the unflushable turd, lingers on

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/jan/14/peter-duttons-ap…

GuySmiley . The Howard turd was shroud in one of those downstairs ‘wipes’, those things are totally unflushable and block ya septic tank. AW.

We've had a Howard/Abbott double flush dilemma this week. Two of the most obnoxious unflushables in Australian history still poking their filthy heads above the rim.

bluediamond wrote:

We've had a Howard/Abbott double flush dilemma this week. Two of the most obnoxious unflushables in Australian history still poking their filthy heads above the rim.

bluediamond. thats gold. So good mate.AW

Who will take over from spud eventually ? Sussie or Jane ? They really are unelectable. https://www.themonthly.com.au/the-politics/rachel-withers/2023/01/18/ba…

Supafreak wrote:

Who will take over from spud eventually ? Sussie or Jane ? They really are unelectable. https://www.themonthly.com.au/the-politics/rachel-withers/2023/01/18/ba…

Well it seems someone has found the perfect candidate.

I just almost spat my coffee every where! . please no.. Or Maybe this is good news

Makes The Liberal party more unhinged.. What's your thoughts? #auspol pic.twitter.com/bL0IXKlYhc

— politic@l spinner (@Justabogan) January 18, 2023

This article explains the problem in Australia. Systematic
https://apple.news/A5xlMmrZFTDqIyR-aEwFFAA

Interesting thread by RW

Imagine having Megan Davis personally explain the Voice to you, and still walking out and parroting your silly 15 questions to the media #insiders

— Rachel Withers (@rachelrwithers) February 4, 2023

Wow I found this really interesting
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-02-11/mystery-community-of-aboriginal-…

Great article above. Thanks for sharing. Some incredible pics.
Just watching the Indigenous All Stars taking it up to the Maoris on their home territory. Great game.
Heard a bit of Treaty by Yothu Yindi popping up through half time...got me thinking.
That song came out in 1991, 25 years or so after the 1967 referendum to include Indigenous Australians in the constitution...as people.
Yet it's been over 30 years since that song was released and still we're no closer to a treaty of any sort. Even though it was promised by the Hawke government at the time.
That's shameful.
We need a treaty for the good of all.
https://www.abc.net.au/doublej/music-reads/features/the-story-of-yothu-…

seeds wrote:

Wow I found this really interesting

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-02-11/mystery-community-of-aboriginal-…

Is a good read.

Been quite a few good articles lately, tthe Alice Springs issue is really starting to bring about some real truth telling.

"What I learnt from an Aboriginal Elder"
https://www.spectator.com.au/2022/12/what-i-learnt-from-an-aboriginal-e…

And this, pity the full article is paywalled
<iframe src="https://www.facebook.com/plugins/video.php?height=314&amp;href=https%3A…" width="560" height="314" style="border:none;overflow:hidden" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="true" allow="autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; picture-in-picture; web-share" allowFullScreen="true"></iframe>

seeds wrote:

This article explains the problem in Australia. Systematic

https://apple.news/A5xlMmrZFTDqIyR-aEwFFAA

Claiming systemic racism on the basis of a handful of indigenous cases? What about all the non-indigenous Australians who have also been wrongfully convicted and imprisoned: just bad luck? The argument only goes one way.

Sorry not sorry

His ongoing games, however, reveal his apology today for what it is: a hollow gesture from a man who doesn’t care about anything beyond politics. https://www.themonthly.com.au/the-politics/rachel-withers/2023/02/13/so…

Supafreak wrote:

Sorry not sorry

Hey what has Lurch done to deserve that … https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1zWGSd7oEag

The Abbott government’s 2014 budget defunded Aboriginal-specific childcare centres, taking away $81 million and the financial support for 38 Aboriginal child and family centres. It cut more than $500 million from Indigenous programs. That has resulted in a decade of lost opportunity for a generation of Aboriginal children. https://www.smh.com.au/national/do-ask-alice-why-my-people-need-a-voice…

Supafreak wrote:

The Abbott government’s 2014 budget defunded Aboriginal-specific childcare centres, taking away $81 million and the financial support for 38 Aboriginal child and family centres. It cut more than $500 million from Indigenous programs. That has resulted in a decade of lost opportunity for a generation of Aboriginal children. https://www.smh.com.au/national/do-ask-alice-why-my-people-need-a-voice…

These child and family centres were initially known as Multifunctional Aboriginal Children's Services (MACS) and the initiative/funding came directly from the recommendations of wide ranging Aboriginal Deaths in Custody Royal Commission. I had the overseeing role here in Vic to get them established from the ground up and to ensure their ongoing financial viability. Many were great successes and a positive vehicle to bridge gaps both within the Aboriginal and between the Aboriginal and broader communities (kids from all backgrounds were warmly welcomed). The MACS initiative also created formal early childhood training programs thru the universities and colleges to allow Aboriginal staff to manage/ work in these centres. Typing this I'm remembering the many great community people I had the honour to meet and work with, all now gone. Vale. Sadly, the defunding of these programs is just another example of how the Aboriginal communities have been screwed over.

Sad that this service is now gone GS . Where did the money get redirected too I wonder. Between twiggy and gina they could easily fund such a program, big clive could chuck in as well. They do alright out of digging holes in “ their “ land .

Never knew that neck chains were still being used up to 1958 . https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/mar/07/how-western-aust…