• Join ccmfans.net

    ccmfans.net is the Central Coast Mariners fan community, and was formed in 2004, so basically the beginning of time for the Mariners. Things have changed a lot over the years, but one thing has remained constant and that is our love of the Mariners. People come and go, some like to post a lot and others just like to read. It's up to you how you participate in the community!

    If you want to get rid of this message, simply click on Join Now or head over to https://www.ccmfans.net/community/register/ to join the community! It only takes a few minutes, and joining will let you post your thoughts and opinions on all things Mariners, Football, and whatever else pops into your mind. If posting is not your thing, you can interact in other ways, including voting on polls, and unlock options only available to community members.

    ccmfans.net is not only for Mariners fans either. Most of us are bonded by our support for the Mariners, but if you are a fan of another club (except the Scum, come on, we need some standards), feel free to join and get into some banter.

"I for one welcome our insect overlords" - The Politics Thread

Capn Gus Bloodbeard

Well-Known Member
Surely you are not offering up Linda Burney as a counter aurgument on behalf of the ALP....sheesh.
Price could one day be PM for the very fact that she is an educated and well spoken Larrakia. She is popular with Black and White and will most likely be fast tracked.
The whole YES referendum is a political exercise. Poorly thought out and wide open to manipulation.
Nobody said anything about Burney, so I have no idea why you're suggesting I did.

If being educated and well-spoken is all you need for PM, then that would still be an improvement over some of the recent PMs. However, you may think that's all that's requied for PM, I happen to think there are some other necessary attributes.

Price is most definitely not popular with mob - most of us despise her. Selling out Aboriginal people just to further her own goals? No different to any other politician in the past who has had a hand in setting policy without listening.

And with the BS she's been spouting over the last few days....wow.

As for your last comment - unfortunately the public are open to manipulation (though we've known that for as long as politics has existed in the world), as we've seen from the No vote. We've seen admission that the politicians behind the No vote will campaign on emotion and fear, rather than facts and information.

It's all reminiscent of the gutter politics of the Abbott years. It's sad to see that it's still working so well.

Political exercise? I'm not even sure what you mean by that. It's a direct response to what Aboriginal people have called for in the Uluru Statement from the Heart.

We have, however, heard from LNP politicians admitting the entire purpose of their campaigning is to make Albo look bad and whether the Voice is best for the country isn't even a consideration. That's not what opposition is supposed to be about - but if you want to worry about a 'political exercise', then it doesn't get any more clearcut than that.
 

BrisRecky

I'm an idiot savant without the pesky savant bit
read the link, still dont get it , I will ask , is the yes thingy work alongside first nations currently in parliament (s) or is it independent
 

FFC Mariner

Well-Known Member
read the link, still dont get it , I will ask , is the yes thingy work alongside first nations currently in parliament (s) or is it independent
If yes gets up, the constitution will establish a committee of First Nations people who's job it is to advise the government on FN issues.
The reason it will be in the constitution is to stop any future government to scrap it
 

pjennings

Well-Known Member
read the link, still dont get it , I will ask , is the yes thingy work alongside first nations currently in parliament (s) or is it independent
The First Nations people currently in Parliament are not representing (or should not be representing) First Nations people only. They have been elected by their constituency and should be serving all of them.
 

scottmac

Suspended
read the link, still dont get it , I will ask , is the yes thingy work alongside first nations currently in parliament (s) or is it independent
It's independent, has no binding authority what so ever, and just provides advice. It's make up can be changed as is required however it's existence can not be changed.

All the other horse shit going around is not important and is bred from fear.
 

Capn Gus Bloodbeard

Well-Known Member
Appreciate your questions - and please, keep asking away. There is a lot of misinformation out there and it can be hard to sort fact from fiction. If you see any particular claim that causes you some concern, please post it here and we can break it down for you. I'm sure we would all agree that we'd rather people make an informed choice, rather than be led by lies and misinformation.

In saying that, I acknowledge that I'm combining my own opinion with facts below, but I think the 'why' is just as important as the 'what', if not more so.

read the link, still dont get it , I will ask , is the yes thingy work alongside first nations currently in parliament (s) or is it independent
An MP or a Senator who is First Nations doesn't speak on behalf of all First Nations in Australia.

This site has a good summary of it
https://ulurustatement.org/the-voice/what-is-the-voice/

Here is the information on exactly what you're voting on:
https://voice.gov.au/referendum-2023/referendum-question-and-constitutional-amendment

The short answer - it will be an independent, and permanent, advisory body.
https://voice.gov.au/about-voice#:~:text=The Aboriginal and Torres Strait,and Torres Strait Islander peoples.

This is also a good read on its key principles

https://voice.gov.au/about-voice/voice-principles



MPs and Senators are elected to represent their electorate - of which only a small % is typically First Nations. Of course, all MPs and Senators will go above and beyond this to advocate on issues they believe are important, but there is no particular obligation to advocate on behalf of First Nations. Look at Jacinta Price, for instance - she's 100% LNP party line before First Nations. No First Nations in government have any particular obligation to be representing First Nations.

Also, our western approach is that we elect representatives who we then expect to speak on our behalf. They should consult, but there's no real strong obligation to. This is opposed to the Aboriginal approach. An Aboriginal politician has no right to claim they speak on behalf of others outside of their electorate - so while we have First Nations representation in parliament, they're unable to provide a voice (so to speak) for all Aboriginals. This is because everybody getting their say is extremely important in Aboriginal culture.

The Uluru Statement from the Heart, for instance, came from a lengthy consultation process involving all Local Land Councils - they'd call for engagement from the local community, local voices were heard, then those were presented at regional or state forums and it went from there. Now, some Aboriginal people argue it still wasn't consultative enough.

Aboriginal related policy has always been the plaything of the government at the time. Bodies are set up, then disbanded by a later government with opposing views, and this has been done repeatedly. Legislation often gets passed with little or no consultation, and then we wonder why throwing money at the problem isn't solving problems. That's actually one of the arguments we see from the No campaigners - that we spend $X on Aboriginal people already. The counter argument to that is - sure - so how about we start making sure it's spent in the right way?

The Referendum is proposing two things.

The first is that constitutional recognition. Bear in mind that our constitution was written by the victors of the frontier wars. It was written by an invading population, and forced upon the Aboriginal people. That's not an emotive statement - it's a simple fact. Not to mention, the writing of the constitution excluded any Aboriginal people from having a say in its writing, yet it included several paragraphs specifically relating to Aboriginal people in a negative way. So, constutional recognition is simply acknowledging that people were here first. To many, recognition is important - and we're the only Commonwealth country lagging on that.

It's The Voice that's the main part that we're debating. Its purpose is simply to advise govenrment on matters relating to First Nations people. There is no negative impact or consequence for non-First Nations (unfortunately, there are a lot of lies being spread there, with No campaigners promoting a lot of false lies, claiming all sorts of things I heard one person try to argue that The Voice will collect an additional tax on all renovations you do to your house. This is the rubbish we're dealing with). It has no power to legislate or really do anything. It's there to advise the government.

The Voice should be doing this via continuous ground-up consultation and engagement with local LAnd Councils to ensure they are providing a voice and not making an elitist representation, but the specific mechanics of how this body will operate or how it's made up are not part of the Referendum. Nor should it be, because that level of detail is beyond what's needed in the Constitution. And being able to change some of the details of the Voice isn't a bad thing. But it needs to be enshrined in Constitution - because it if was simply legislated, then guaranteed a future government would get rid of it.

By providing First Nations advice to government on matters affecting First Nations people, this will lead to better policy and legislation, which is argued lead to better outcomes for First Nations people (and that can also mean better outcomes for non-First Nations people as well. When you look at things like advocating for better policy to keep prisoners safe to reduce deaths in custody, those things carry over to all people).

Will The Voice lead to better outcomes for First Nations people? Its proponents believe it will - and how could it not?

Will The Voice have a negative impact upon anybody else? No.

While yes, every minority group has issues particular to them and should be listened to by Government, First Nations has a unique position of being the tenants of this land then suffering invasion, which has lead to a long history of detrimental policy made on their behalf and without consultation. That unique position is why some special treatment is warranted, and all we are asking for is the opportunity to have a genuine say over matters that affect us and us alone, while recognising that the government will still have the power to ignore that. It's not about providing any special benefits, or a land/money grab, or taking anything away from anybody.
 
Last edited:

booney

Well-Known Member
If you want to boil it down to the bare facts the Voice will act as a lobby group for issues affecting First Nations people.Plenty of lobby groups talk to politicians but that does not mean that their particular interest is regarded.Admittedly this particular lobby group will be given the status of being in the constitution but basically that is to protect it from some future government abolishing it as Honest John Howard did with ATSIC( Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission) years ago.This was an advisory body set up by the Federal government to advise on First Nations matters.

Howard took the opportunity to abolish ATSIC because of the serious criminal charges,including rape,that then ATSIC chairman,Geoff Clark ,was facing.
 

VonBowellski

Well-Known Member
What is the point of having a Minister for Indigenous Australians (and prior versions of the office) for all of this time and National Indigenous Australians Agency and how are they different to the proposed Voice?
 

pjennings

Well-Known Member
If you want to boil it down to the bare facts the Voice will act as a lobby group for issues affecting First Nations people.Plenty of lobby groups talk to politicians but that does not mean that their particular interest is regarded.Admittedly this particular lobby group will be given the status of being in the constitution but basically that is to protect it from some future government abolishing it as Honest John Howard did with ATSIC( Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission) years ago.This was an advisory body set up by the Federal government to advise on First Nations matters.

Howard took the opportunity to abolish ATSIC because of the serious criminal charges,including rape,that then ATSIC chairman,Geoff Clark ,was facing.
Many oppositions get into government by promising a lot and when they get the Treasury benches cry foul because the state of the budget is worse than expected. It is a common and cynical practice.

John Howard took it to a new level as Treasury in 1977 when he promised with a famous ad a 'fistful of dollars'. When they were returned he suddenly discovered that the previous Treasurer (him) had left the budget in a not so rosy way and reneged on promises. As such he was given the ironic sobriquet by alan Ramsey in the he Sydney Morning Herald of Honest John Howard in t

Ramsay later lamented the state of political journalism when the newbies when he was finally elected PM in 1996 referred to him as an 'honest politician'.
 

Capn Gus Bloodbeard

Well-Known Member
What is the point of having a Minister for Indigenous Australians (and prior versions of the office) for all of this time and National Indigenous Australians Agency and how are they different to the proposed Voice?
Good questions.

For one, the NIAA is an internal body subject to the government, whereas the Voice will be independent. Second, of course, is the fact that the NIAA can be abolished at any time - and government do have a history of doing just that. We've discussed in other posts why having the permanence is important.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-03-10/checkmate-voice-to-parliament-doesnt-already-exist/102072654

In that sense, having a Minister for Indigenous Australians doesn't mean much. A minister holding a portfolio, while they administer those functions, they're not required to hold any particular expertise in that area.

Don't forget, Tony Abbott was the self-appointed Minister for Women and Minister for Indigenous Affairs. That fact alone should tell you why that ministerial posting doesn't even come close to doing what the Voice is intended to achieve, or why it provides no guarantee to be of any benefit to First Nations people, nor to listen to us. Not to mention, Ministers are always subject to party lines, whereas the Voice won't.
 
Last edited:

booney

Well-Known Member
Good questions.

For one, the NIAA is an internal body subject to the government, whereas the Voice will be independent. Second, of course, is the fact that the NIAA can be abolished at any time - and government do have a history of doing just that. We've discussed in other posts why having the permanence is important.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-03-10/checkmate-voice-to-parliament-doesnt-already-exist/102072654

In that sense, having a Minister for Indigenous Australians doesn't mean much. A minister holding a portfolio, while they administer those functions, they're not required to hold any particular expertise in that area.

Don't forget, Tony Abbott was the self-appointed Minister for Women and Minister for Indigenous Affairs. That fact alone should tell you why that ministerial posting doesn't even come close to doing what the Voice is intended to achieve, or why it provides no guarantee to be of any benefit to First Nations people, nor to listen to us. Not to mention, Ministers are always subject to party lines, whereas the Voice won't.
Abbott being the Minister and Indigenous Affairs could be construed as a pisstake.
 

Insertnamehere

Well-Known Member
Good questions.

For one, the NIAA is an internal body subject to the government, whereas the Voice will be independent. Second, of course, is the fact that the NIAA can be abolished at any time - and government do have a history of doing just that. We've discussed in other posts why having the permanence is important.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-03-10/checkmate-voice-to-parliament-doesnt-already-exist/102072654

In that sense, having a Minister for Indigenous Australians doesn't mean much. A minister holding a portfolio, while they administer those functions, they're not required to hold any particular expertise in that area.

Don't forget, Tony Abbott was the self-appointed Minister for Women and Minister for Indigenous Affairs. That fact alone should tell you why that ministerial posting doesn't even come close to doing what the Voice is intended to achieve, or why it provides no guarantee to be of any benefit to First Nations people, nor to listen to us. Not to mention, Ministers are always subject to party lines, whereas the Voice won't.
Or Robodebt aka Human Services aka Ex PM Slomo
 

booney

Well-Known Member
Many oppositions get into government by promising a lot and when they get the Treasury benches cry foul because the state of the budget is worse than expected. It is a common and cynical practice.

John Howard took it to a new level as Treasury in 1977 when he promised with a famous ad a 'fistful of dollars'. When they were returned he suddenly discovered that the previous Treasurer (him) had left the budget in a not so rosy way and reneged on promises. As such he was given the ironic sobriquet by alan Ramsey in the he Sydney Morning Herald of Honest John Howard in t

Ramsay later lamented the state of political journalism when the newbies when he was finally elected PM in 1996 referred to him as an 'honest politician'.
I should have put Honest in inverted commas.
 

Big Al

Well-Known Member
What is the point of having a Minister for Indigenous Australians (and prior versions of the office) for all of this time and National Indigenous Australians Agency and how are they different to the proposed Voice?
You could assume they will be the politicians that are supposed to listen to whatever the voice group come up with.

These things should have been clearly set out in this proposal process but they are not. That i am aware of. It’s just noted as government.

The voice group is nothing more than a committee (supposedly with no political alliances - both parties will probably try to infiltrate it) made up of Aboriginals to discuss the same things all the other communities and political groups do.

It will waste money like the others but they might come up with something different but even if they do the government has the final say on if they listen. So even if they cure Aboriginal and white issues in one meeting it can be squashed by those government groups you mentioned.

If the government was interested it would shake up those levels of government but that won’t happen.

Allocation of funds are unlikely to change, they will just be after more money for their causes like any other group entitled to lobby government.
 

Wombat

Well-Known Member
If you want to boil it down to the bare facts the Voice will act as a lobby group for issues affecting First Nations people.Plenty of lobby groups talk to politicians but that does not mean that their particular interest is regarded.Admittedly this particular lobby group will be given the status of being in the constitution but basically that is to protect it from some future government abolishing it as Honest John Howard did with ATSIC( Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission) years ago.This was an advisory body set up by the Federal government to advise on First Nations matters.

Howard took the opportunity to abolish ATSIC because of the serious criminal charges,including rape,that then ATSIC chairman,Geoff Clark ,was facing.

ATSIC were blatantly corrupt. It was a train wreck and needed to be abolished.
 

pjennings

Well-Known Member
ATSIC were blatantly corrupt. It was a train wreck and needed to be abolished.
Agree with the first sentence and part of the second. Disagree with the second part of the second sentence.

One of the most quoted arguments for a GST (when every other OECD country was trying to get rid of it) was that there was no sales tax on a Lear jet. The simple answer was to put a sales tax on Lear jets. Instead we put on a regressive tax on everyone and gave a tax cut to everyone (paid for by bracket creep with tax brackets not moving for 5 years). We transferred $27b from households to business (who could claim ITC) in one foul swoop.

The simple answer for ATSIC would have been a cleanup of the corruption.
 

Online statistics

Members online
18
Guests online
93
Total visitors
111

Forum statistics

Threads
6,755
Messages
387,386
Members
2,707
Latest member
ForzaFred
Top