VonBowellski
Well-Known Member
So how is everyone feeling about a yay or a nay now that a date has been set?
-
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
- Thread starter FFC Mariner
- Start date
no different.
waste of money. Unfortunately Aboriginal health issues and other problems won’t be fixed by a piece of paper. Especially when you can set it up without this crap.
The world has gone so woke it’s racist to single out a race even for possibly positive change.
Would be nice if the government was more focused on everybody and cost of living issues instead of this.
I am a no voter but i see some merits in what they are trying to achieve but the message has been muddled.
Also I think Aboriginals themselves are divided and that doesn’t help. There are some (not all) Aboriginals who don’t want reconciliation and help because all they have known is complaining and are breed on anti everything sentiments.
A lot of people simply don’t care.
Not looking forward to hearing about it all the time on the news
Last edited:
Insertnamehere
Well-Known Member
I agree in that I dont think it'll change anything. Certainly not without a treaty. But then even the Maori in NZ have a treaty, specific representation and a body to address the govt and it hasn't done a lot on face value.
As for the yes message, the campaign literally started today. So no one has explicitly been putting out the yes values. Aside from corporates and individuals. Certainly the No have been going very hard with misinformation since day dot, to bugger all rebuffing.
As for division, I've seen some data that indicated something 80-90%+ for the yes from indigenous voters. Poll bludger did a bit on it.
I'm naturally inclined to a yes vote. Just haven't had the time to look at what's before the Parliament regarding the wording of the legislation. So will probs kick.into gear now.
VonBowellski
Well-Known Member
I too am naturally inclined to vote yes and for recognition in the constitution, but the voice body leaves me guessing. What's the point of all state and federal ministers for indigenous peoples/affairs and what's the difference this group will be to all of the other advisory groups etc
Allreet?
Well-Known Member
I used to be against the idea of constitutional recognition because (as a lawyer) I've always believed that no one group of people ought to be singled out for special treatment.
But after several decades reflection, I've decided we've had 230+ years to do the right thing by Aborigines and we've totally f**ked it up. So maybe it is time for something profoundly symbolic to begin the process of true reconciliation.
It does disturb me how limp Albo's selling of the idea has been - especially in response to Dutton's outrageous misinformation. Hopefully he'll make a better fist of it now but I fear it's already too late.
And for those who try to tell you that the Aborigines already get a favourable deal in Australia, just ask them: what would you rather be in this country... black or white.
You'll probably get called a smartarse. I usually do.
But after several decades reflection, I've decided we've had 230+ years to do the right thing by Aborigines and we've totally f**ked it up. So maybe it is time for something profoundly symbolic to begin the process of true reconciliation.
It does disturb me how limp Albo's selling of the idea has been - especially in response to Dutton's outrageous misinformation. Hopefully he'll make a better fist of it now but I fear it's already too late.
And for those who try to tell you that the Aborigines already get a favourable deal in Australia, just ask them: what would you rather be in this country... black or white.
You'll probably get called a smartarse. I usually do.
Roger the Cabin Boy
Well-Known Member
I think it has become too political. Albo insisted on it [I remember him saying early in the piece that if it failed that he would legislate it anyway, but has recently flipped on this].
It was a smart political move as it meant that Dutton and the Nats were forced to be the bad guys and advocate for No.
Rather than being so political I would prefer it for the government to issue neutral info such as For and Against arguments for each position. This is how we should be deciding on making any change to our most important law.
ATM I dont think that the legal uncertainty is worth it. Its more than just a symbolic gesture, it will result in all sorts of rulings by the High Court on the meaning of any ambiguous wording or intent. And of course tax payers will be footing the bill for those challenges.
Sure aborigines are disadvantaged, but how is a voice going to fix that? A voice already exists via their MPs [like everyone else], and through various Departments of Aboriginal Affairs. A Royal Commission into the failings of those departments I would certainly support. Linda Burney should be having a close look at the own department and asking why it isn't working, and also where the coalition's ministry failed.
I dont buy the argument that their problems will be solved by aborigines dictating policy-have a look at the many existing dysfunctional remote communities run by autonomous land councils. [Assault, domestic violence, sexual assault, pornography, truancy, drug/alcohol problems and outrageous stats on the murder of wives]. Will the elders of such dysfunctional communities be representatives if the voice gets up? Some may be the very cause of the social problems in their communities, or have turned a blind eye. Alternatively they could have uninformed urban tertiary educated indigenous professionals who aren't living the disadvantage of those communities representing them, so they dont understand the issues as well as those living it. I wouldn't like to see another bunch of public servants clogging up the wheels of government.
I think disadvantage in part is from successive governments being leery of treating aborigines the same as others via assimilation [they fear being accused of destroying their culture] Instead aborigines get the dole 'sit down money' and no requirement to travel to where jobs are in return for support]. So successive governments just kick that can down the road and throw more money at the problem, and pat themselves on the back . Result, low self esteem as they generally aren't providers for their family by hunting or working and their is no motivation to change anything
.
Health in those communities is poor in part because people choose to live a long way from medical facilities. We cant afford to build a state of the art hospital for every remote community. There are no armed guards keeping them on their traditional patch of land. If I choose to live in an isolated area, like many white rural people, I risk not being able to access facilities [like ambulances and hospitals] that I can in an urban area where I have a job.
No favourable deal for aborigines? Federal and state ministeries devoted to fixing your problems, billions spent over decades, preferential employment opportunities [if you tire of 'sit down money' and decide to get a job], preferential educational support [ABSTUDY], and something like forty percent of the continent claimed under native title.
Before responding harshly to this post, consider how the greek, italian and vietnamese migrants have succeeded in only a couple of generations. Most vietnamese migrants had no english, no money, were traumatised by the war and piracy on the boats on their way here. Most valued education as a way of succeeding and nurtured it in their children. They worked hard and for long hours and so did their children at their studies. They had no preferential educational support or 'targetted' jobs. Contrast their success over these few decades against the failure of aborigines and the government policies that have robbed them of their dignity and their potential.
It was a smart political move as it meant that Dutton and the Nats were forced to be the bad guys and advocate for No.
Rather than being so political I would prefer it for the government to issue neutral info such as For and Against arguments for each position. This is how we should be deciding on making any change to our most important law.
ATM I dont think that the legal uncertainty is worth it. Its more than just a symbolic gesture, it will result in all sorts of rulings by the High Court on the meaning of any ambiguous wording or intent. And of course tax payers will be footing the bill for those challenges.
Sure aborigines are disadvantaged, but how is a voice going to fix that? A voice already exists via their MPs [like everyone else], and through various Departments of Aboriginal Affairs. A Royal Commission into the failings of those departments I would certainly support. Linda Burney should be having a close look at the own department and asking why it isn't working, and also where the coalition's ministry failed.
I dont buy the argument that their problems will be solved by aborigines dictating policy-have a look at the many existing dysfunctional remote communities run by autonomous land councils. [Assault, domestic violence, sexual assault, pornography, truancy, drug/alcohol problems and outrageous stats on the murder of wives]. Will the elders of such dysfunctional communities be representatives if the voice gets up? Some may be the very cause of the social problems in their communities, or have turned a blind eye. Alternatively they could have uninformed urban tertiary educated indigenous professionals who aren't living the disadvantage of those communities representing them, so they dont understand the issues as well as those living it. I wouldn't like to see another bunch of public servants clogging up the wheels of government.
I think disadvantage in part is from successive governments being leery of treating aborigines the same as others via assimilation [they fear being accused of destroying their culture] Instead aborigines get the dole 'sit down money' and no requirement to travel to where jobs are in return for support]. So successive governments just kick that can down the road and throw more money at the problem, and pat themselves on the back . Result, low self esteem as they generally aren't providers for their family by hunting or working and their is no motivation to change anything
.
Health in those communities is poor in part because people choose to live a long way from medical facilities. We cant afford to build a state of the art hospital for every remote community. There are no armed guards keeping them on their traditional patch of land. If I choose to live in an isolated area, like many white rural people, I risk not being able to access facilities [like ambulances and hospitals] that I can in an urban area where I have a job.
No favourable deal for aborigines? Federal and state ministeries devoted to fixing your problems, billions spent over decades, preferential employment opportunities [if you tire of 'sit down money' and decide to get a job], preferential educational support [ABSTUDY], and something like forty percent of the continent claimed under native title.
Before responding harshly to this post, consider how the greek, italian and vietnamese migrants have succeeded in only a couple of generations. Most vietnamese migrants had no english, no money, were traumatised by the war and piracy on the boats on their way here. Most valued education as a way of succeeding and nurtured it in their children. They worked hard and for long hours and so did their children at their studies. They had no preferential educational support or 'targetted' jobs. Contrast their success over these few decades against the failure of aborigines and the government policies that have robbed them of their dignity and their potential.
Allreet?
Well-Known Member
Alice Springs: Heart of Australia
There’s a major problem in the heart of Australia. On the surface, the problem is all about alcohol – a cheap drug fuelling the anger of the dislocated and disaffected. In reality, the problem goes…
adriandeans.wordpress.com
Why not try the thought experiment?
Allreet?
Well-Known Member
As for the No case...
theconversation.com
How do the 'yes' and 'no' cases stack up? Constitutional law experts take a look
The “yes” and “no” cases have outlined their arguments to be sent out to Australian voters. Here, legal experts examine the claims by both sides to see if they stack up.
theconversation.com
Capn Gus Bloodbeard
Well-Known Member
Despondent....I can't see the yes vote getting up.
And I think that will mean it's dead in the water - and so will treaty be (notwithstanding the states going through that process themselves).
Not to mention, it just might bring the sadistic spud into the ruling chair a bit sooner than otherwise.
It's quite disheartening to see the absolute blatant lies and general misinformation from people like Dutton and Price. But, a few LNP MPs have been caught admitting that their party is only doing this to make Labor look bad. They know that they don't have to say anything true - all they need to do is stoke fear and confuse people.
JoyfulPenguin
Well-Known Member
I just got a high distinction at my Uni in Constitutional Law, whether that makes my view more or less valid is up to you.
But fundamentally the Voice is about recognition not outcomes.
Our Constitution is not like the USA's, it doesn't exist as an expression of philosophy. Our Constitution is basically empty beyond giving the federal government some powers, we do not have a right to freedom of speech, press and the High Court is incredibly reluctant to say we have the right to vote.
Our Constitution exists because the sjx colonies wanted control over immigration and a common market. The very first action of Australia's Parliament was to enact the White Australia Policy, and then deny women and aboriginal people the vote.
We make absolutely no mention of First Nations people in our Constitution, our original constitution before the 1967 referendum actively discriminated by not allowing "laws to benefit aborigines" nor could they be counted in the census.
Things that are directly written into our Constitution do not necessairly function and aren't permanent if we don't want them to be. One of the few things we have actually written into our Constitution is the Inter State Commission, it hasn't existed since the 1920s. If a government truly doesn't want to listen to the Voice then they won't have to.
The Voice is about righting a historical wrong in our Constitution and recognising that Australian history started before the 1770s.
But fundamentally the Voice is about recognition not outcomes.
Our Constitution is not like the USA's, it doesn't exist as an expression of philosophy. Our Constitution is basically empty beyond giving the federal government some powers, we do not have a right to freedom of speech, press and the High Court is incredibly reluctant to say we have the right to vote.
Our Constitution exists because the sjx colonies wanted control over immigration and a common market. The very first action of Australia's Parliament was to enact the White Australia Policy, and then deny women and aboriginal people the vote.
We make absolutely no mention of First Nations people in our Constitution, our original constitution before the 1967 referendum actively discriminated by not allowing "laws to benefit aborigines" nor could they be counted in the census.
Things that are directly written into our Constitution do not necessairly function and aren't permanent if we don't want them to be. One of the few things we have actually written into our Constitution is the Inter State Commission, it hasn't existed since the 1920s. If a government truly doesn't want to listen to the Voice then they won't have to.
The Voice is about righting a historical wrong in our Constitution and recognising that Australian history started before the 1770s.
JoyfulPenguin
Well-Known Member
What I would most recommend for people before the referendum is sit down and read our Constitution.
It's not overly long and if you haven't read it before, I promise you that you will be surprised by what you find.
Link for those interested:
It's not overly long and if you haven't read it before, I promise you that you will be surprised by what you find.
Link for those interested:
Roger the Cabin Boy
Well-Known Member
Concerns raised over possibility of High Court legal challenges to Voice referendum wording
Constitutional lawyers are divided on whether the proposed wording for the Voice could face a High Court challenge if it was written into the constitution.
www.abc.net.au
Roger the Cabin Boy
Well-Known Member
Its been a while since I read it, and as you say it wasnt a long read. One thing that surprised me was that NZ is still eligible to become a state of Australia-weird
FFC Mariner
Well-Known Member
Then acknowledge the original owners in the preamble.
There you go. Fixed.
There you go. Fixed.
FFC Mariner
Well-Known Member
NZ were always offered the chance to join what was in effect a customs union.
Still can too
Insertnamehere
Well-Known Member
Its been quite a hot topic over the last 12 months.1 reason it won't happen is the massive disparity in how we legally recognise and treat our first nations peoples.
NZ have a treaty and special Maori representation in parliament.
Insertnamehere
Well-Known Member
Wouldn't get too fixated. The referendum is about whether people want it to happen. The amendment is still a living document and as such can be molded further. And likely will.
Concerns raised over possibility of High Court legal challenges to Voice referendum wording
Constitutional lawyers are divided on whether the proposed wording for the Voice could face a High Court challenge if it was written into the constitution.
Allreet?
Well-Known Member
My understanding is that Aborigines were always counted (or estimated) in the census but not included in the official population figures - so your point effectively stands.
Thoroughly agree with the rest of your arguments though, and it's pretty pathetic how the Yes campaign has done effectively nothing to correct the misinformation being peddled by Potatohead and his cronies. Let's not forget that the National party came out against the Voice before there was any detail at all - that tells you a lot.
For simplicity... all the Voice does is recognise ATSIs as the First Peoples of Australia and provide for a body to make representations to the parliament. That's all.
Parliament retains all power to constitute the Voice and to use (or not) any of their recommendations.
In fact, parliament could almost certainly legislate off its own bat to create the Voice but a more profound reconnection with the Australian people was hoped for as a symbolic reunification.
Alas...
Roger the Cabin Boy
Well-Known Member
'No' to all questions except for the feeling like an outsider question, and obviously being white is easier than being black.Alice Springs: Heart of Australia
There’s a major problem in the heart of Australia. On the surface, the problem is all about alcohol – a cheap drug fuelling the anger of the dislocated and disaffected. In reality, the problem goes…
Why not try the thought experiment?
Unfortunately this questionnaire fails to identify the causes of the social breakdown in indigenous communities let alone propose solutions.
JoyfulPenguin
Well-Known Member
I think they got indirectly counted beginning in the 40s/50s, but couldn't be counted as part of electorates.
I think that's where the slightly inaccurate claim that they were counted as "Fauna and Flora" comes from.
Online statistics
- Members online
- 21
- Guests online
- 175
- Total visitors
- 196
