Should there be an Aboriginal voice to parliament? (3 Viewers)

[Rattlehead15]

aboriginal people experience a disproportionate amount amount of disadvantage, and, unlike with white people where we do know how to improve their situation, indigenous people have a unique culture and mindset and so we can’t just apply the same policies as the ones known the help white people, and the government (both liberal and labor) have shown time and time again that they can’t truly understand and solve indigenous peoples’ problems in the same manner - this is why the Uluru statement from the heart (ie from indigenous people themselves) suggested this as a way to get more meaningful advice on the subject and make a bigger difference.

This is a good point, but I'm unsure on why Aboriginal disadvantage is any different to any other Australian's disadvantage. I mean, when I was applying for university about half of the scholarships were reserved for Aboriginal people. As someone who is largely part of the majority, yet highly financially disadvantaged, I felt quite excluded when searching for scholarship opportunities when 75% of them were aboriginal, rural, for women, etc. Just because of the colour of my skin, my location and my gender I am not afforded equal opportunities? This relates to my point because, well, we have systems in place to support Aboriginal people's education, careers, and despite their miniscule prescence in the overall population and they're still somehow in need of support at a constitutional level to further deviate from the rest of Australia? I don't see how their situation is so different from every other Australian who is disadvantaged.

 

[Rattlehead15]

so whats next, we know human nature is that they will just ask for more money and more handouts, and governments will be pressured to comply in order that they can keep votes as stuff like this can be leveraged politcally e.g if a government says no a lot of outrage will be sparked etc and then they will be voted out and nobody wants to be voted out

I find it funny how we separate aboriginals to be some sort of special race that cant learn the same way as we do even tho we are all human and know that education would help everybody and help lift everybody out of poverty.
but apparently this doesnt apply to aboriginals?
there is a large alcohol abuse problem in aboriginals who in average are poorer as well as there is larger rate of alcohol abuse in poorer communities full of white people etc.... I dont think aboriginals are some special race of people who deseve more care I just believe we are equal

I agree. Also by pushing Aboriginals in to the same vein as disabled people, that is treating them as though they need support to succeed which hinders their confidence as a community in my opinion.
*external support

 

[carrotsss]

so whats next, we know human nature is that they will just ask for more money and more handouts, and governments will be pressured to comply in order that they can keep votes as stuff like this can be leveraged politcally e.g if a government says no a lot of outrage will be sparked etc and then they will be voted out and nobody wants to be voted out

I find it funny how we separate aboriginals to be some sort of special race that cant learn the same way as we do even tho we are all human and know that education would help everybody and help lift everybody out of poverty.
but apparently this doesnt apply to aboriginals?
there is a large alcohol abuse problem in aboriginals who in average are poorer as well as there is larger rate of alcohol abuse in poorer communities full of white people etc.... I dont think aboriginals are some special race of people who deseve more care I just believe we are equal

people are barely voting for the voice itself, people won’t be outraged and vote a government out for not following the advice if it really gets that insane

I don’t really know how to approach your other point other than the fact that they quite clearly do have a different psyche. in poor white communities, you can just employ traditional methods like investing more into their education etc, but it simply doesn’t work like that in indigenous communities - I personally know teachers who have taught at schools with majority indigenous students and they have all consistently had that same perspective.

I personally believe that we should aim to help people who are disadvantaged. Do I think we should do more for poor white communities too? Yes of course. But the insane levels of disadvantage faced by indigenous communities (and the stats don’t lie, they are insane) requires a unique approach, and I firmly believe that they should be a priority - and in a situation like this where we have an opportunity that may allow significantly more impactful legislation for indigenous people with zero downside, I think it’s a no-brainer.

 

[Unovan]

Making it constitutional is brain-dead. Albanese has failed on all other aspects of the prime minstership (cost of living, foreign policy, immigration etc. etc.) and is relying on getting a referndum through to secure the labour party, like what happened after the previous referendums. The LNP supported consitutional recognition, but Albanese had to push for a constitutional voice. It should've just been legislated and the referendum designated for constitutional recognition.

 

[scaryshark09]

1% of the parliament being indigenous people who grew up in cities and have little understanding of the real issues affecting remote communities isn’t enough, and hasn’t worked, the stats don’t lie.

currently their total representation in parliament is 4.8%.

advisory bodies are a standard part of governments - we get economists to advise on matters of the economy because they are experts in that field, and in that same vein we will get indigenous people to advise on matters of indigenous affairs because they are inherently experts on that field. it’s not about ambiguous ideas of ‘separation’, it’s about having a real impact on the lives of real people.

the government has given plenty of clarity in every area necessary, if there’s any areas where you need clarity then you can ask and I’m almost certain I’ll have answers

i understand that, however, not one advisory body in our parliament has been guided along the lines of race, meaning that their are no unattainable guidelines for anyone to be part of them

 

[carrotsss]

This is a good point, but I'm unsure on why Aboriginal disadvantage is any different to any other Australian's disadvantage. I mean, when I was applying for university about half of the scholarships were reserved for Aboriginal people. As someone who is largely part of the majority, yet highly financially disadvantaged, I felt quite excluded when searching for scholarship opportunities when 75% of them were aboriginal, rural, for women, etc. Just because of the colour of my skin, my location and my gender I am not afforded equal opportunities? This relates to my point because, well, we have systems in place to support Aboriginal people's education, careers, and despite their miniscule prescence in the overall population and they're still somehow in need of support at a constitutional level to further deviate from the rest of Australia? I don't see how their situation is so different from every other Australian who is disadvantaged.

The purpose of those scholarships is to encourage them to engage in tertiary study because statistically they have the lowest engagement in tertiary study out of any disadvantaged group, and something like those scholarships (or support through the voice) is a practical way to close the gap and make a real impact. At the end of the day it’s your subjective opinion to have in this area - personally, I believe that we should aim to have the most practical impact in terms of reducing disadvantage by offering targeted support but at the end of the day if you believe that having less impact whilst maintaining ideological neutrality is preferable then that’s fine too.

 

[carrotsss]

currently their total representation in parliament is 4.8%.

And it’s still not working. They’re still experiencing the same disadvantage, nothing has changed. Evidently, a different approach is needed

 

[year10studentpreparin]

1% of the parliament being indigenous people who grew up in cities and have little understanding of the real issues affecting remote communities isn’t enough, and hasn’t worked, the stats don’t lie.

I agree. Also by pushing Aboriginals in to the same vein as disabled people, that is treating them as though they need support to succeed which hinders their confidence as a community in my opinion.
*external support

yeah 100% I agree with you it would hinder their confidence. I know an aboriginal who went to uni who felt ashamed and felt it was unfair because it was legit easier for him to get in just because he is aboriginal and he just wanted to be treated like equal and be recognised for his hardwork not because his aboriginal and have a lot of society think that aboriginals should be treated in the same vein as disabled people

 

[carrotsss]

Making it constitutional is brain-dead. Albanese has failed on all other aspects of the prime minstership (cost of living, foreign policy, immigration etc. etc.) and is relying on getting a referndum through to secure the labour party, like what happened after the previous referendums. The LNP supported consitutional recognition, but Albanese had to push for a constitutional voice. It should've just been legislated and the referendum designated for constitutional recognition.

constitutional voice is about having a real, permanent impact on the lives of indigenous people in a way which won’t just get destroyed in the long term by one prime minister. simply having recognition would have a very small impact by comparison.

can you please provide examples of where you think labor have failed? in my opinion they’ve done a pretty good job on all of those fronts, especially compared to what the coalition did last term.

 

[year10studentpreparin]

Making it constitutional is brain-dead. Albanese has failed on all other aspects of the prime minstership (cost of living, foreign policy, immigration etc. etc.) and is relying on getting a referndum through to secure the labour party, like what happened after the previous referendums. The LNP supported consitutional recognition, but Albanese had to push for a constitutional voice. It should've just been legislated and the referendum designated for constitutional recognition.

yeah he is useless I want to see his face when it fails

 

[scaryshark09]

if there’s any areas where you need clarity then you can ask and I’m almost certain I’ll have answers

How it will help disadvantaged communities and close the gap
How many members with this Voice have
Will they be elected or chosen, and how this would occur.


“It doesn’t make any sense to do that detailed consultation until we have the support of the Australian people to change the constitution.” (Yes23 Brochure)

voting yes to something so ambiguous is dangerous. they will make the guidelines and regulations of the voice after they have the vote of the Australian people, which seems absurd.

 

[Rattlehead15]

And it’s still not working. They’re still experiencing the same disadvantage, nothing has changed. Evidently, a different approach is needed

Quite frankly it is hard to escape disadvantage when 28% of the inmate population is Aboriginal. I know prison is not a very good system to stop criminal activity but I don't believe that a voice will suddenly stop young Aboriginal people from engaging in such activity. It is a very messy situation that is hard to solve and while I'd like to see how the voice tackles this issue I think that Aboriginal people themselves should introspectively be evaluating their parenting and activities before a constitutional amendment is made. I wish the best for Aboriginal people but I don't think anyone can really help their situation but themselves. This may be a reason for their having a voice but at the end of the day the voice will just be advising a bunch of politicians and policy makers who aren't Aboriginal. At least thats how I see it.

 

[Rattlehead15]

How it will help disadvantaged communities and close the gap
How many members with this Voice have
Will they be elected or chosen, and how this would occur.


“It doesn’t make any sense to do that detailed consultation until we have the support of the Australian people to change the constitution.” (Yes23 Brochure)

voting yes to something so ambiguous is dangerous. they will make the guidelines and regulations of the voice after they have the vote of the Australian people, which seems absurd.

That last point is what concerns me the most. We don't even fully know what we're voting for. Hell, I haven't even been told the actual details of the voice itself. It should be the government's job to inform the population of what the voice is if they want to push this campaign, it isn't my job to educate myself on a political matter that I am largely un associated with. This referendum is Albanese's last resort.

 

[carrotsss]

How it will help disadvantaged communities and close the gap
How many members with this Voice have
Will they be elected or chosen, and how this would occur.


“It doesn’t make any sense to do that detailed consultation until we have the support of the Australian people to change the constitution.” (Yes23 Brochure)

voting yes to something so ambiguous is dangerous. they will make the guidelines and regulations of the voice after they have the vote of the Australian people, which seems absurd.

- The voice will provide representation of aboriginal people to specifically communicate what their problems are and how they should be addressed. Indigenous people specifically will have a far greater understanding of the cultural and otherwise concerns that are specific to them, in order to aid in providing targeted assistance rather than broad, ineffective assistance that has little to no impact by disregarding these factors
- They will be chosen from throughout Australia, the specific number of people and selection method isn’t known at this point but I don’t think it really makes a difference to the function of the voice, because it is absolutely known that it will have people from a broad range of areas and that’s what matters.

The voice is quite clear on the parts that matter, the ambiguities are only in areas like the very specifics of the selection method. They won’t be able to implement anything that they wouldn’t already be able to implement as regular legislation, and it would be electoral suicide for labor (let alone it wouldn’t pass the senate anyway) if they attempted to implement something insane as part of it, it’s just not going to happen

 

[Unovan]

constitutional voice is about having a real, permanent impact on the lives of indigenous people in a way which won’t just get destroyed in the long term by one prime minister. simply having recognition would have a very small impact by comparison.

can you please provide examples of where you think labor have failed? in my opinion they’ve done a pretty good job on all of those fronts, especially compared to what the coalition did last term.

It can't be destroyed by one prime minsister. If it was legislated in it would have to go through parliament to be dissolved, which is very unlikely to be supported unless there wer esrious reason to do so (like in the ATSIC fraud case). There is little to no difference in my opinion in the amount of power a constitutional body would have versus a statutory one. The whole point of the voice is to communicate indigenous issues, how is this hampered by not being in the constitution?

- NDIS is a massive failure and causing severe economic damage and not acheiving the required outcomes for disabled people
- voice to parliament
- Spending $1,000,000,000 on the war in Ukraine while our country is in the middle of a cost of living crisis
- Not tackling the homeless issue
- Inflation ramping up out of control, even post pandemic
- Immigration policy
- Public opinion extremely low

Now i'm not saying that LNP party would necessarily have performed any better on these topics or any other. But my view is that Albanese is viewing this referendum as his last chance to rescue public favour and establish labor for a guarantee next election by pushing through "progressive" policy. He's trying to replicate the 1967 referedum and it doesn't sit right with me the way the whole thing has panned out

 

[carrotsss]

Quite frankly it is hard to escape disadvantage when 28% of the inmate population is Aboriginal. I know prison is not a very good system to stop criminal activity but I don't believe that a voice will suddenly stop young Aboriginal people from engaging in such activity. It is a very messy situation that is hard to solve and while I'd like to see how the voice tackles this issue I think that Aboriginal people themselves should introspectively be evaluating their parenting and activities before a constitutional amendment is made. I wish the best for Aboriginal people but I don't think anyone can really help their situation but themselves. This may be a reason for their having a voice but at the end of the day the voice will just be advising a bunch of politicians and policy makers who aren't Aboriginal. At least thats how I see it.

the solution isn’t going to come through every single aboriginal person in the country somehow coming to some sudden introspection about the problems of their parenting and ‘activities’, that’s just clearly not realistic. the problem isn’t the aboriginal people themselves nor is it the culture, the problem is the friction between their culture and our Western society, and the culture isn’t going to suddenly change so we are going to have to play our part of that puzzle. the aboriginal people as a whole did introspect, and came to the conclusion that a constitutional voice was the best course of action to reduce this friction, and given they know their situation best, it seems quite logical to accept their proposal

 

[Rattlehead15]

the solution isn’t going to come through every single aboriginal person in the country somehow coming to some sudden introspection about the problems of their parenting and ‘activities’, that’s just clearly not realistic. the problem isn’t the aboriginal people themselves nor is it the culture, the problem is the friction between their culture and our Western society, and the culture isn’t going to suddenly change so we are going to have to play our part of that puzzle. the aboriginal people as a whole did introspect, and came to the conclusion that a constitutional voice was the best course of action to reduce this friction, and given they know their situation best, it seems quite logical to accept their proposal

I can understand your argument for the voice but I guess, as you said earlier, I guess I am more inclined to ideological equality rather than targeted support. All I can say is that I hope Aboriginals can figure a way out of their disadvantage whether it be through the voice or not.

 

[carrotsss]

It can't be destroyed by one prime minsister. If it was legislated in it would have to go through parliament to be dissolved, which is very unlikely to be supported unless there wer esrious reason to do so (like in the ATSIC fraud case). There is little to no difference in my opinion in the amount of power a constitutional body would have versus a statutory one. The whole point of the voice is to communicate indigenous issues, how is this hampered by not being in the constitution?

- NDIS is a massive failure and causing severe economic damage and not acheiving the required outcomes for disabled people
- voice to parliament
- Spending $1,000,000,000 on the war in Ukraine while our country is in the middle of a cost of living crisis
- Not tackling the homeless issue
- Inflation ramping up out of control, even post pandemic
- Immigration policy
- Public opinion extremely low

Now i'm not saying that LNP party would necessarily have performed any better on these topics or any other. But my view is that Albanese is viewing this referendum as his last chance to rescue public favour and establish labor for a guarantee next election by pushing through "progressive" policy. He's trying to replicate the 1967 referedum and it doesn't sit right with me the way the whole thing has panned out

prime minister was a poor choice of words but all it takes it one LNP government and a legislated voice would be ripped to shreds or degraded, akin to native title

- The NDIS was a good thing, it was degraded by the coalition into a mess of private contractors who are less effective and more expensive simultaneously, and exploit the system. The Labor government is working as we speak on fixing this deep problem and making the NDIS both effective and economical once more.
- ?? Elaborate
- We don’t live in America, we haven’t spent a trillion dollars on Ukraine. They’ve provided a reasonable amount of assistance, but nothing that hampers our ability to deal with domestic issues.
- They have been taking massive steps to solve the homelessness problem, they passed the HAFF which will lead to tens of thousand of social and affordable houses being built, and significantly reduce homelessness for years to come through its design.
- This has been a problem throughout the entire world, it started during the coalition and it wasn’t their fault then and it isn’t Labor’s fault now. The independent reserve bank are the main ones in charge of that, and they have been taking steps as necessary to address the problem.
- What?? They haven’t changed anything significant about immigration policy other than funding it sufficiently
- Albanese has had extremely high public opinion throughout his term, this is just wrong.

The aim of the voice referendum was to follow through with the Indigenous peoples’ recommendation. If Albanese only wanted political points, he would’ve never even suggested this referendum because it’s painfully obvious it has been really, really bad for Labor and it was always going to be. It’s not about doing what’s best for them electorally, it’s about making a real impact.

 

[year10studentpreparin]

the solution isn’t going to come through every single aboriginal person in the country somehow coming to some sudden introspection about the problems of their parenting and ‘activities’, that’s just clearly not realistic. the problem isn’t the aboriginal people themselves nor is it the culture, the problem is the friction between their culture and our Western society, and the culture isn’t going to suddenly change so we are going to have to play our part of that puzzle. the aboriginal people as a whole did introspect, and came to the conclusion that a constitutional voice was the best course of action to reduce this friction, and given they know their situation best, it seems quite logical to accept their proposal

I dont think the actual aboriginals who we need to talk to in the rural areas are even aware of what the voice vote is about this referendum only happened because albo and some fellow canberrans

 

[carrotsss]

I dont think the actual aboriginals who we need to talk to in the rural areas are even aware of what the voice vote is about

over 80% of aboriginals support the voice