A Proposed Law: to alter the Constitution to recognise the First Peoples of Australia by establishing an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice.
For non Australians this explains The Voice. Voting in Australia is compulsory and this includes referendums.
It’s official — the Voice referendum is happening. Here’s what comes next - ABC News
With less than 2 weeks until the referendum on The Voice, Australians what are your thoughts?
I am overseas, so will not be able to vote. If I could vote it would be Yes. I think that for too long, old white guys have been creating policies with negative impacts on Indigenous people. Listening to Indigenous people will make policies better. My hope would be that it would lead to better policies in key areas like health, education and employment. Areas where Indigenous people fall far behind the rest of Australians. The only negative to me is that it may be ineffective as Politian’s will not listen or act on the advice.
I have actually been too busy with work here (healthcare) to be able to focus too much on the vote and what my preference will be. The “No” vote, at the moment, looks like it has the majority in most states and territories. As is I guess normal for these sorts of issues there is a lot of extreme situations being mentioned to sway people one way or the other. I am in WA and the State Labour government introduced new Cultural Heritage Laws in July and quickly had to repeal them as the situation became unworkable, things like that have put a lot of people of voting Yes I think.
I am also a Kiwi, and NZ is very much going down a “co governance” route with the current labour government who has been in for 6 years. There is massive duplication of systems and a lot of wastage of money, with money going to a lot of Maori “elites” (to use the terminology commonly used in NZ) and not finding its way to the less privileged members of the tribes etc.
Working in health care I am exposed daily to the complexities of First Nations health and well being. As much as I hate to say it, Australia actually has significant problems with systemic racism but it remains relatively well hidden from the outside world and there is significance ignorance of the issue “in house”.
I am not sure if a “Yes” vote will go anyway to solving this (as in, I am actually not sure). I am not really sure if there are significant risks of making things worse by voting Yes though.
I have actually been too busy with work here (healthcare) to be able to focus too much on the vote and what my preference will be. The “No” vote, at the moment, looks like it has the majority in most states and territories. As is I guess normal for these sorts of issues there is a lot of extreme situations being mentioned to sway people one way or the other. I am in WA and the State Labour government introduced new Cultural Heritage Laws in July and quickly had to repeal them as the situation became unworkable, things like that have put a lot of people of voting Yes I think.
I am also a Kiwi, and NZ is very much going down a “co governance” route with the current labour government who has been in for 6 years. **There is massive duplication of systems and a lot of wastage of money, with money going to a lot of Maori “elites” (to use the terminology commonly used in NZ) and not finding its way to the less privileged members of the tribes etc. **
Working in health care I am exposed daily to the complexities of First Nations health and well being. As much as I hate to say it, Australia actually has significant problems with systemic racism but it remains relatively well hidden from the outside world and there is significance ignorance of the issue “in house”.
I am not sure if a “Yes” vote will go anyway to solving this (as in, I am actually not sure). I am not really sure if there are significant risks of making things worse by voting Yes though.
I have actually been too busy with work here (healthcare) to be able to focus too much on the vote and what my preference will be. The “No” vote, at the moment, looks like it has the majority in most states and territories. As is I guess normal for these sorts of issues there is a lot of extreme situations being mentioned to sway people one way or the other. I am in WA and the State Labour government introduced new Cultural Heritage Laws in July and quickly had to repeal them as the situation became unworkable, things like that have put a lot of people of voting Yes I think.
I am also a Kiwi, and NZ is very much going down a “co governance” route with the current labour government who has been in for 6 years. **There is massive duplication of systems and a lot of wastage of money, with money going to a lot of Maori “elites” (to use the terminology commonly used in NZ) and not finding its way to the less privileged members of the tribes etc. **
Working in health care I am exposed daily to the complexities of First Nations health and well being. As much as I hate to say it, Australia actually has significant problems with systemic racism but it remains relatively well hidden from the outside world and there is significance ignorance of the issue “in house”.
I am not sure if a “Yes” vote will go anyway to solving this (as in, I am actually not sure). I am not really sure if there are significant risks of making things worse by voting Yes though.
How has the bolded part above happened?
Where to start.
I have been out of the country for 18 years but still have parents there.
It is probably easier to find you some links to how this all came about, but it is difficult for me to summarise in a few sentences and also difficult for me to either summarise or link to articles without appearing racist myself, the irony being that I have Maori heritage and blood but for whatever reason feel I need to be careful saying things in a public forum.
I have actually been too busy with work here (healthcare) to be able to focus too much on the vote and what my preference will be. The “No” vote, at the moment, looks like it has the majority in most states and territories. As is I guess normal for these sorts of issues there is a lot of extreme situations being mentioned to sway people one way or the other. I am in WA and the State Labour government introduced new Cultural Heritage Laws in July and quickly had to repeal them as the situation became unworkable, things like that have put a lot of people of voting Yes I think.
I am also a Kiwi, and NZ is very much going down a “co governance” route with the current labour government who has been in for 6 years. **There is massive duplication of systems and a lot of wastage of money, with money going to a lot of Maori “elites” (to use the terminology commonly used in NZ) and not finding its way to the less privileged members of the tribes etc. **
Working in health care I am exposed daily to the complexities of First Nations health and well being. As much as I hate to say it, Australia actually has significant problems with systemic racism but it remains relatively well hidden from the outside world and there is significance ignorance of the issue “in house”.
I am not sure if a “Yes” vote will go anyway to solving this (as in, I am actually not sure). I am not really sure if there are significant risks of making things worse by voting Yes though.
How has the bolded part above happened?
Where to start.
I have been out of the country for 18 years but still have parents there.
It is probably easier to find you some links to how this all came about, but it is difficult for me to summarise in a few sentences and also difficult for me to either summarise or link to articles without appearing racist myself, the irony being that I have Maori heritage and blood but for whatever reason feel I need to be careful saying things in a public forum.
I’ll Google it. I really was more curious about the redundant government systems and wastage than corruption or nepotism or favoritism of elites, which happens to some extent in every (?) community regardless of race or religion or culture.
Listening to Indigenous people will make policies better. My hope would be that it would lead to better policies in key areas like health, education and employment.
“The Waitangi Tribunal is an independent body determining whether the Crown has lived up to its treaty obligations or not and I think that kind of monitoring body is really important,” Dr Jones says.
“It has acted as a truth-telling body, and so people often talk about it as having a truth and reconciliation function.”
How is that truth telling?
“The Waitangi Tribunal is an independent body determining whether the Crown has lived up to its treaty obligations or not and I think that kind of monitoring body is really important,” Dr Jones says.
“It has acted as a truth-telling body, and so people often talk about it as having a truth and reconciliation function.”
How is that truth telling?
What has happened is that under the Waitangi Tribunal there have been massive (read into the many billions) of dollars of payments made to the majority of Maori tribes in NZ. On the face of it, little of this money has appeared to have filtered down to the day to day Maori person who is struggling to make ends meet whilst many of the elites of the tribes are getting paid large sums of money to help administer those funds. The settlements were supposed to be, from my recall of things, a lasting settlement. But now there is basically ongoing calls to make them non binding and to be able to resettle and continue to take a tax from the community on a variety of things. So what was thought to be a final settlement has now being thrown into question.
Just google the co-governance around Maori Health, what has been established so far, what has been spent and what improvements in outcomes etc have actually been achieved. There is basically nothing to show besides a large number of people earning significant money from it.
Some of the crazy things that have happened, a prominent gang member charging $2500 for cultural reports as part of sentencing reports for Maori people. I think he has done over 3000 to date.
Listening to Indigenous people will make policies better. My hope would be that it would lead to better policies in key areas like health, education and employment.
How will the voice change these outcomes?
The voice **could **change these outcomes by including recommendations on better policies from Indigenous people. Most federal government Politian’s are white males living in cities. They do not necessarily understand the challenges of Indigenous people, mostly living outside of cities. They may not recognise the negative impact of some policies on Indigenous people.
I will vote yes and am under no illusions, it will do little to affect those issues:
Data show that people living in rural and remote areas have higher rates of hospitalisations, deaths, injury and also have poorer access to, and use of, primary health care services, than people living in Major cities. (Oz Institute, Health and welfare).
What is the difference in life expectancy between rural and urban Australia?
In every state and territory, those in regional and remote areas have life expectancies several years lower than in the city.
This divide between life expectancy in the cities and in the country is a problem that extends beyond far western NSW. The city/country divide exists across Australia, and it is growing. Inequity between Australians living in capitals and remote areas is a significant problem that demands government intervention, particularly concerning overwhelmed and under resourced health systems
“The Waitangi Tribunal is an independent body determining whether the Crown has lived up to its treaty obligations or not and I think that kind of monitoring body is really important,” Dr Jones says.
“It has acted as a truth-telling body, and so people often talk about it as having a truth and reconciliation function.”
How is that truth telling?
What has happened is that under the Waitangi Tribunal there have been massive (read into the many billions) of dollars of payments made to the majority of Maori tribes in NZ. On the face of it, little of this money has appeared to have filtered down to the day to day Maori person who is struggling to make ends meet whilst many of the elites of the tribes are getting paid large sums of money to help administer those funds. The settlements were supposed to be, from my recall of things, a lasting settlement. But now there is basically ongoing calls to make them non binding and to be able to resettle and continue to take a tax from the community on a variety of things. So what was thought to be a final settlement has now being thrown into question.
Just google the co-governance around Maori Health, what has been established so far, what has been spent and what improvements in outcomes etc have actually been achieved. There is basically nothing to show besides a large number of people earning significant money from it.
Some of the crazy things that have happened, a prominent gang member charging $2500 for cultural reports as part of sentencing reports for Maori people. I think he has done over 3000 to date.
I believe this type of situation is what the Liberal Party are claiming will happen if the Yes campaign wins. The Voice is ensuring that indigenous people have a say on policies, and is not a tribunal or giving reparations. I do think there’s a difference but I’d be interested in hearing why you have used this as an example.
In terms of reparations or anything of the like … through the Native Title Act (legislation passed by Parliament) indigenous people can make land claims over unalienated crown land.
Updating the Constitution to include consultation with a historically and systemically underrepresented group in my opinion is the right step forward.
“The Waitangi Tribunal is an independent body determining whether the Crown has lived up to its treaty obligations or not and I think that kind of monitoring body is really important,” Dr Jones says.
“It has acted as a truth-telling body, and so people often talk about it as having a truth and reconciliation function.”
How is that truth telling?
What has happened is that under the Waitangi Tribunal there have been massive (read into the many billions) of dollars of payments made to the majority of Maori tribes in NZ. On the face of it, little of this money has appeared to have filtered down to the day to day Maori person who is struggling to make ends meet whilst many of the elites of the tribes are getting paid large sums of money to help administer those funds. The settlements were supposed to be, from my recall of things, a lasting settlement. But now there is basically ongoing calls to make them non binding and to be able to resettle and continue to take a tax from the community on a variety of things. So what was thought to be a final settlement has now being thrown into question.
Just google the co-governance around Maori Health, what has been established so far, what has been spent and what improvements in outcomes etc have actually been achieved. There is basically nothing to show besides a large number of people earning significant money from it.
Some of the crazy things that have happened, a prominent gang member charging $2500 for cultural reports as part of sentencing reports for Maori people. I think he has done over 3000 to date.
I believe this type of situation is what the Liberal Party are claiming will happen if the Yes campaign wins. The Voice is ensuring that indigenous people have a say on policies, and is not a tribunal or giving reparations. I do think there’s a difference but I’d be interested in hearing why you have used this as an example.
In terms of reparations or anything of the like … through the Native Title Act (legislation passed by Parliament) indigenous people can make land claims over unalienated crown land.
Updating the Constitution to include consultation with a historically and systemically underrepresented group in my opinion is the right step forward.
I don’t present that as a scare tactic, I am almost certainly a Yes voter and I see daily the impact on First Nations people through being a specialist in a large public hospital. I just present that as how things have evolved in NZ for better or for worse, depending on your viewpoint, but given how the Labour government looks close to getting annihilated in NZ in the election there soon, the general public in NZ is quite sick of the divisive policies and the waste of tax payers dollars.
It was interesting in terms of what happened in WA with the Cultural Heritage Laws-they are an example which just fed into the liberal party “no” vote arguments. Can’t deny though that they happened and there is real concern in some areas about what it might mean for landowners etc. Hence being repealed very quickly after they were introduced in July.
“The Waitangi Tribunal is an independent body determining whether the Crown has lived up to its treaty obligations or not and I think that kind of monitoring body is really important,” Dr Jones says.
“It has acted as a truth-telling body, and so people often talk about it as having a truth and reconciliation function.”
How is that truth telling?
Is this a rhetorical question?
In the abstract, it makes sense to me that when two parties to a contract have vastly unequal bargaining power and unequal power to enforce the terms of contract, the weaker party should demand the right, at minimum, to voice concerns about any breaches. I think of the voice as an alteration to the framework of government— it creates a more representative structure.
Whether individuals within either of the two contracting groups are more or less prone to errors in governing is a separate issue. Those issues can be found anywhere and should be addressed separately.
ETA: if a person thinks truth is found through collecting evidence (evidence —> relevant information that makes a claim more or less probable) rather then than divine inspiration, then it makes sense to listen carefully to people with less power. The powerful people tend to drown out the less powerful. The powerful people tend to want things their own way. Both groups have the ability to lie. But a person will get closer to the truth by listening to them all, including the less powerful one.
It seems rather crazy to establish a voice and then leave it up to Parliament to decide how it is going to work. One should have a referendum that also outlines how it is going to work. Without that it seems like there will be endless expensive “consultations” likely not changing much. The lawyers and consultants will do well though.
One of my patients is the wife of the former chief of the local Indian band. He gave up the position a number of years ago because of poor health. When he died a year ago she refused a cultural burial etc because she was so disgusted with the new leadership of the band. She says they spend the money of themselves and nepotism whereas her husband had the interests of the whole much more in mind. We here stories like this about another local group. Hard to say how this compares to corruption in more mainstream gov’ts.
One of my patients is the wife of the former chief of the local Indian band. He gave up the position a number of years ago because of poor health. When he died a year ago she refused a cultural burial etc because she was so disgusted with the new leadership of the band. She says they spend the money of themselves and nepotism whereas her husband had the interests of the whole much more in mind. We hear stories like this about another local group. Hard to say how this compares to corruption in more mainstream gov’ts.
I think self-dealing is something we see in every population. I think it’s one of those human traits.
I really cannot imagine anyone saying white people are less prone to self-dealing than indigenous people. Colonialism and slavery are the biggest self-dealing examples I can think of. Men in Christianity— that’s a shit-ton of self-dealing.
If you have a problem with self-dealing, you’re going to have to address it across the board. It doesn’t make any sense to exclude people from effectively participating in government because you think they might self-deal.