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

[Roger the Cabin Boy]

Where is that bloody Von Bowelski? lol. Didn't his mother tell him not to ask about religion or politics?

 

[pjennings]

Has been a very good and civil discussion, frankly better than some I have have had at Uni.

I may disagree but it's great to see people engaged and caring about our Constitution outside a lecture theatre.

Credit to you guys.

Wish it was that way elsewhere!! I'm not advocating either way. Everyone can vote how they feel.

I just think we should have already had amendments to the AEC powers so that patently false claims can be punished in both elections and referendums - during the campaign - not coming to a conclusion 18 months after an election.

 

[VonBowellski]

Where is that bloody Von Bowelski? lol. Didn't his mother tell him not to ask about religion or politics?

I'm still here.

Enjoying the first civilized discussion on this forum haha

I did ask it on the politics page so its your own fault really....

 

[Big Al]

I agree Albo has buggered this up, but exactly how is he going for a socialist policy?

Fair enough but what would you call it then.

 

[Big Al]

Just as a note - generally speaking, "Aborigines" is considered a derogatory term. It harks back to the old racist legislation and policies. Appointments to the 'protection of aborigines' and permits for 'aborigines' to work etc. I know a couple of letters doesn't seem like it changes much, but it does.

And I know nobody on here has intended any negative connotations from usage of that term, so I'm certainly not accusing anybody.

Aboriginal (always capitalised) peoples is better. That or First Nations Peoples......which is preferred depends on who you ask, but you can't really go wrong with either.

And to be getting into more detail, if anybody is interested, those are generally preferred over Indigenous, though that's not as big a deal as Aborigine). Indigenous kind of tends to fit more into academic writings, I think.....ATSI is also outdated (I think that's also a rejection as that was the government acronym for a long time, still during times when we weren't really listened to) - always use the full wording if you want to use those words. Writing online and just want an acronym? I'd say FNP is probably the better on.


Because that's what the Uluru Statement from the Heart called for - and as such, that was Albo's election promise.

Looks like a good, and civil, discussion being had on here - I'll have to make time to read through responses over the next couples of days.

Doesn’t stop him from implementing the working group now. Constitution recognition is a part of it. Not it must be No 1. The reason because this group won’t agree on everything. Which is ok to a degree but it’s leadership group will lead its path. That path may not be appreciated by the current or future governments. That won’t win Albo the recognition he is looking for

 

[Big Al]

Has been a very good and civil discussion, frankly better than some I have have had at Uni.

I may disagree but it's great to see people engaged and caring about our Constitution outside a lecture theatre.

Credit to you guys.

Agreed and i am learning along the way.
The simplest being I hadn’t read the constitution and i am not sure many have. Was an interesting little example.
Anything that old is going to be outdated and should receive updates to suit the society of the day.

Wish open discussion and tolerance was more in society. It’s ok to have different opinions. Just because they are different on one subject doesn’t mean we can be friends. Imo. I enjoy being shown another point of view. I can then accept or deny it or keep it in mind.

I deal with more liberal supporters and don’t know to many Labor people but this forum has a few strong Labor followers and it’s good to see their following is not just because he or she said so. They have excellent examples or experiences to back them up. I am more Liberal but i do have some strong Labor values as well.

I haven’t liked and still don’t like the leadership of the Labor party but i also don’t like the Liberal party leadership and the last few liberal party leaders have been poor.

 

[JoyfulPenguin]

Doesn’t stop him from implementing the working group now. Constitution recognition is a part of it. Not it must be No 1. The reason because this group won’t agree on everything. Which is ok to a degree but it’s leadership group will lead its path. That path may not be appreciated by the current or future governments. That won’t win Albo the recognition he is looking for

I think there is a misconception that Albo wrote and chose the thing.

He is just implementing the exact wording from the Uluru Statement from The Heart which was negotiated, argued and agreed to by 1000s of First Nations Elders.

If he didn't back it, it would have betrayed decades of work by First Nations people and also made the advisory part of the Voice useless.

Things would just be done completely by Executive Govenment (by the Prime Minister and Ministers) and the whole thing would be utter pointless.

 

[true believer]

Wish it was that way elsewhere!! I'm not advocating either way. Everyone can vote how they feel.

I just think we should have already had amendments to the AEC powers so that patently false claims can be punished in both elections and referendums - during the campaign - not coming to a conclusion 18 months after an election.

yes there should be heavy penalties for lying . but labor f'ked up anyway .by not calling a murdoch royal
commission day one after winning the election . which is why the referendum will go down.
mundine has never meet and aboriginal ,he hasn't robbed and price is a IPA sock puppet .

 

[Big Al]

I think there is a misconception that Albo wrote and chose the thing.

He is just implementing the exact wording from the Uluru Statement from The Heart which was negotiated, argued and agreed to by 1000s of First Nations Elders.

If he didn't back it, it would have betrayed decades of work by First Nations people and also made the advisory part of the Voice useless.

Things would just be done completely by Executive Govenment (by the Prime Minister and Minister) and the whole thing would be utter pointless.

Agreed he didn’t write it. But it’s how he is using it that i have a problem with. To me the appearance is for his personal gain not the benefit of those who did write it. Way to much of it tokenism and not actual change.

What happens if no wins. Does he go ahead with the working voice group anyway?

Now he might not want to let us know the answer to that. I agree in that strategy.

I would like to know if things will happen without the constitutional changes or does he drop it and say the people don’t want it.

I would like to see more work being done on the implementation of this group. Have the members been decided? Who chooses them. Etc

I also wonder if that committee should have a leader as well. Someone to figure head it. Not sure of the benefits of it but maybe if people could see it they might be more interested.

 

[pjennings]

yes there should be heavy penalties for lying . but labor f'ked up anyway .by not calling a murdoch royal
commission day one after winning the election . which is why the referendum will go down.
mundine has never meet and aboriginal ,he hasn't robbed and price is a IPA sock puppet .

A RC should not have been confined to Murdoch - it should have been media wide.

 

[Allreet?]

Fair enough but what would you call it then.

Socialism (to the extent it is clearly understood by anyone) is fundamentally an economic construct. The Voice is economic neutral. I wouldn't label the Voice as anything other than aspirational.

As for the quality of our political leaders, they've been dreadful for years. This is why I'm so disappointed in Albo's handling of the Voice as I think - given what he inherited and the world economic headwinds - he's done a pretty sound job. The Voice is just a shambles though.

It hasn't helped with Dutton doing his best to turn it into a political football and thereby muddying the waters, but Albo has just stood by and let him do it - thereby confirming the doubt in the minds of some voters.

Someone might correct me but I don't think there's ever been a referendum passed without bipartisan support from the big parties.

 

[pjennings]

Agreed he didn’t write it. But it’s how he is using it that i have a problem with. To me the appearance is for his personal gain not the benefit of those who did write it. Way to much of it tokenism and not actual change.

What happens if no wins. Does he go ahead with the working voice group anyway?

Now he might not want to let us know the answer to that. I agree in that strategy.

I would like to know if things will happen without the constitutional changes or does he drop it and say the people don’t want it.

I would like to see more work being done on the implementation of this group. Have the members been decided? Who chooses them. Etc

I also wonder if that committee should have a leader as well. Someone to figure head it. Not sure of the benefits of it but maybe if people could see it they might be more interested.

Haven't read it all yet but this does answer some of your questions.

What is the Indigenous voice to parliament, how would it work, and what happens next?

Here’s what we know so far about how the Albanese government hopes to enshrine an Indigenous voice in the constitution via a referendum

www.theguardian.com

 

[Allreet?]

Agreed he didn’t write it. But it’s how he is using it that i have a problem with. To me the appearance is for his personal gain not the benefit of those who did write it. Way to much of it tokenism and not actual change.

What happens if no wins. Does he go ahead with the working voice group anyway?

Now he might not want to let us know the answer to that. I agree in that strategy.

I would like to know if things will happen without the constitutional changes or does he drop it and say the people don’t want it.

I would like to see more work being done on the implementation of this group. Have the members been decided? Who chooses them. Etc

I also wonder if that committee should have a leader as well. Someone to figure head it. Not sure of the benefits of it but maybe if people could see it they might be more interested.

As I said earlier, the parliament already has power to create the Voice, if it wishes. I believe though that Albo wanted a profoundly symbolic statement to kick off the process - similar to the gay marriage vote - to demonstrate that the entire community (or most of it) was behind the idea of reconciliation.

But even though parliament can do it (it's no harder than setting up any govt agency) the political will may not be there in the event of a No win. Obviously it depends on a lot of factors, but what it would do is give the coalition a free kick in terms of "a govt that acts in defiance of the nation's will".

As for your other questions... I've no idea and maybe the pollies don't either. Surely it would be a matter for stakeholder consultation but this is all putting the cart before the horse. The referendum is not about those questions - it is simply about recognition and creating an consultative/advisory group with no legislative power.

Symbolically powerful but that's all.

 

[JoyfulPenguin]

Consid

Agreed he didn’t write it. But it’s how he is using it that i have a problem with. To me the appearance is for his personal gain not the benefit of those who did write it. Way to much of it tokenism and not actual change.

What happens if no wins. Does he go ahead with the working voice group anyway?

Now he might not want to let us know the answer to that. I agree in that strategy.

I would like to know if things will happen without the constitutional changes or does he drop it and say the people don’t want it.

I would like to see more work being done on the implementation of this group. Have the members been decided? Who chooses them. Etc

I also wonder if that committee should have a leader as well. Someone to figure head it. Not sure of the benefits of it but maybe if people could see it they might be more interested.

Completly agree, he made it about himself and the Labor Party when he announced on election night.

Pat Dodson and Linda Burney were clearly supposed to lead the debate. But Dodson is now terminally ill and Linda Burney had a stroke and now can't speak above a whisper. That left Albo to be the spokesman.

I doubt anything will go ahead if the No vote wins. This referendum is the work of more than half a century of royal commissions and reports. As well as the closest anyone has got to almost unanimous agreement with all First Nations Elders.

 

[pjennings]

As I said earlier, the parliament already has power to create the Voice, if it wishes. I believe though that Albo wanted a profoundly symbolic statement to kick off the process - similar to the gay marriage vote - to demonstrate that the entire community (or most of it) was behind the idea of reconciliation.

But even though parliament can do it (it's no harder than setting up any govt agency) the political will may not be there in the event of a No win. Obviously it depends on a lot of factors, but what it would do is give the coalition a free kick in terms of "a govt that acts in defiance of the nation's will".

As for your other questions... I've no idea and maybe the pollies don't either. Surely it would be a matter for stakeholder consultation but this is all putting the cart before the horse. The referendum is not about those questions - it is simply about recognition and creating an consultative/advisory group with no legislative power.

Symbolically powerful but that's all.

From the discussions I heard previously it was more about the appearance of it being permanent (though it could be rescinded by a future referendum). They have been many iterations over the years that have been abolished at the stroke of a pen.

 

[booney]

Albo has been criticised for using the call for the Voice as a vanity project and political stunt by some people and also criticised by others for letting Dutton and co run the No campaign littered with misinformation and outright lies.He cannot please everyone and I do feel he has tried to be careful not to politicise the issue and therefore has not come out strongly against the No campaign and campaigners,especially on a personal level.

Dutton has seen his chance to score political points by committing the Coalition to the No vote rather than making it a free vote partly to appease the Nationals,partly to demonstrate his strength as a leader and partly oppose any Labor initiative( taking his cue from Tony Abbott who opposed any Government bill when he was the Opposition leader).

The Voice comes directly from the Uluru statement and is not some ALP or Left wing initiative though most ALP members do support it as do many Coalition people and voters.

For me personally I think the Voice will be an advisory and consultative body for the Parliament on First Nations issues as the Uluru statement envisaged.However it cannot overrule Parliament though I am not sure whether the High Court can be appealed to if the Voice members have their advice rejected .The Voice needs to be put into the constitution hence the need for a referendum.If not in the constitution any such body can be abolished by the Government as little ,honest,No Apology Johnny did to ATSIC( the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission) in 2004.

How the Voice will be constituted and who will be it leaders and members cannot be determined until the referendum result is known.If the Yes vote wins the day then First Nations people can work out who they want to lead the Voice and who should be part of the Voice.That is how it gives them more say in how affairs affecting First Nations people are organised.Of course what is important to someone living in the NT will obviously be different to someone living in Redfern but both urban and rural/remote community Aboriginals would need representation.

 

[Big Al]

Haven't read it all yet but this does answer some of your questions.

What is the Indigenous voice to parliament, how would it work, and what happens next?

Here’s what we know so far about how the Albanese government hopes to enshrine an Indigenous voice in the constitution via a referendum

www.theguardian.com

Great thanks

 

[booney]

If the voice was that crucial why not implement it any way. Why waste so much money and time on this piece of paper?
A simplistic idea is being politicised heavily by Albo. He wants the credit for it in history but I don’t think he actually knows what to do and how to help. People are seeing through this. If it’s so right why do we all need convincing.

If Albo actually cared about Aboriginal issues he would have the voice group up and running already. And the amendment would just be a finalisation of the process not the beginning.

Simplistically part 1 of the Uluru statement (the voice) is very easy to understand and a few lines in the constitution don’t really worry to many.

Where the issue lies is the rest of the Uluru statement and what that means. Albo can’t or doesn’t want to get involved in that argument and that is going to be the downfall because words like trust and faith from a politician are not going to be successful. We are a lot more intelligent society than that.

The issues over in WA were certainly bad timing for those who see this as leading to more.

It’s quite clear he has limited political policies and is trying to go for a socialist policy and is spending way to much time on it for many peoples likes. Especially in difficult economic times. Many consider those issues more important. If he tackled both then he might have a better chance but people are seeing him as full of hot air.

The train station was packed with yes campaigners this morning. The press is on.

Interesting times ahead and i am enjoying every bodies thoughts without getting nasty.

The whole point of the Voice is that Aboriginal people will be deciding on the membership and leadership if it gets through.So preempting that by Albo setting up a working group means that again the government is dictating terms to them which is against the spirit and intention of the original Uluru statement.

The referendum is about voting on whether there is a Voice to Parliament,not about the Treaty or Truth telling so it is patently false to include these parts of the Uluru statement in an argument against the Yes vote.Of course Lydia Thorpe argue that the Voice is irrelevant and that we should be going straight to a Treaty but that is a discussion for another day.

I think Albo genuinely feels that it is important for the Voice section of the Uluru statement to be put to a referendum and of course there is some political gain involved if it gets over the line but I don't feel he is heavily politicising the issue.

I do agree with you that on this forum the discussion has been civil and responsible.

 

[Roger the Cabin Boy]

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.

At the time of Federation I think NZ declined because we were trading competitors, they thought themselves 'better stock' [no convicts] and their premier had a big ego-he liked heading a country and didn't want to become one of many state premiers.

 

[Allreet?]

Apparently at one point NZ were more likely to sign up than WA... who had to be dragged kicking and screaming into the federation. They still want away.