Indigenous Voice to Parliament

[slangman]

I have just come back from a trip to Cape York and I am not surprised to see that the states with bigger indigenous populations and remote communities in QLD & WA are most opposed to the voice.
I met a young aboriginal man at a campsite who is from Weipa and the stories that he was telling me were both horrific and sad.
They confirmed to me that the voice would predominantly benefit the political and social elite first and foremost. Anyone who thinks that it will be the beginning of change to rural communities is delusional and is living in a fairy world.
Phil Egan types will be “the voice” to politicians and business leaders. Dodgy self serving “experts” who will fleece the system as they always have before.
Well known and famous indigenous people don’t require a voice to make real change as the money is already available. It’s the downright hard and gritty work that all the elites are not willing to contribute to and that’s the expectation that society should begin to demand of them if anything is ever going to change.

Don't take this the wrong way, but I often hear this kind of thing without explanation or confirmatory data. How do you know what the opinion of these larger communities is? Is there credible survey data?

Also, can you better define and enumerate this 'political and social elite' and group of 'dodgy self-serving experts', or are you just guessing? Who are they, and are they really 'elite' in the generally accepted definition of the term?

You seriously don’t know who the “political elite” or self serving are?
The people who have more privilege,money and contacts in Canberra than the average Australian yet try to “speak” on behalf of communities that they are so far removed from in every sense it’s laughable that they even attempt to consider themselves the be similar.
You know, the ones that you never here from when the going gets tough like in Alice Springs earlier this year when those same scumbags were nowhere to be seen when “their” people were causing mayhem and terrorising the community. Didn’t see Langton, Goodes, Meghan Davis, Mayo etc. doing anything to calm the situation and never did ANY of them get involved in fixing the disaster. Self serving you bet!!

As for the dodgy self serving experts…again unless you live under a rock you might have heard of ATSIC or Phil Egan and similar types….Or the over 80 indigenous government funded organisations run by indigenous people who’s results in improving outcomes for “their” people has been an abject failure despite being funded to the tune of $4.5b last year.
Where’s the money gone and who is accountable for the lack of progress and change?
Yeah, those dodgy self serving people!

That young man gave me his opinion. It wasn’t anything more than his observation of witnessing it his whole life. I guess I would never have known certain details that he divulged if I stayed within the confines of Melbourne.

A question that I have for all of those inner city political elites that are short on details but full of virtue signalling is “will the Voice replace all of those 80+ government funded indigenous run organisations or will it just been an add on to what is already in place? Will it just be another magnet in the fridge or are we removing all the existing magnets and replacing with just this one so to speak?”

[think positive]

I just put up with the awful Waleed to listen to senator McKenzie making so much sense.
No.

What's your problem with Waleed?

A Muslim Australian that should know his place?

A Muslim Australian that doesn't fit your negative connotation?

Waleed is a fantastic example of assimilation, a child born in Australia to Egyptian parents, one who respects his Muslim faith but also loves his aussie rules, cricket, plays the electric guitar, is married to a white woman who converted to Islam, is a trained lawyer and has worked hard for his success.

He's about as progressive as a practising Muslim can get and yet that still isn't enough for some.

Classy!
https://www.news.com.au/entertainment/t ... cialBakers

[pietillidie]

Slangman, you're turning a throwaway mental model into a strong opinion. Most of the people you define as 'elite' are very likely low-middle income service delivery specialists whom you've never met and whose roles and responsibilities you likely don't have the first clue about. You're overrating the few token twats and narcissists the media bring to your ear, and are using the usual organisational bureaucracy that accompanies every single scale management context on earth, public or private, as justification for pre-existing assumptions.

What makes you think the handful of annoying people you see on telly qualify as a numerically meaningful class? You just dont have the data to know. Certainly, and we know from salary data, most of those involved in the delivery of social services will absolutely not be 'elite' by any known standard, or will be taking a major cut on their commercial worth if they are well-qualified. And a good number will be approaching underclass status and will never ever be able to buy a home. But somehow, they don't count as a 'class'; that distinction only applies to a very likely small minority of annoying grifters.

Have you not encountered the very same twats in work and business? They're everywhere. Sometimes you wonder how anyone makes money, but then you realise yes, they are everywhere, and hence that's the normal standard. Anyone who thinks this stuff is the sole purview of social services or Aboriginal communities can't have much world experience.

The serious adult problem is never about universals like the odd annoying twat or bureaucratic inefficiency. They're par for the course; yet, what's also par for the course is that countries without such services and funding are highly likely to be chaotic, violent, failed states. And that's because progress is never ever about anything even close to perfection. Progress is about tiny gains despite flaws and twats.

Do you also think the business people you see on TV who made millions overnight represent what business usually looks like? Most successful businesses, organisations and projects eke out small gains amidst some larger losses and larger gains. You just hear about the big winners because they're filtered to your attention.

In the very same way, you only hear from complete outliers and dic£wads on social issues. By definition, the average person in the field making small gains simply doesn't come to your attention, despite being part of a vast class that is actually numerically significant.

You clearly have zero data or credible handle on the subject, and certainly have little concrete to say about this imaginary elite class, or on the views of Aboriginal peoples. All you have is throwaway talk which no one would pay you 50 cents for. Somehow, you're happy with that when it comes to other's lives and wellbeing. I hope you demand better from those pontificating on your own life.

[think positive]

Slangman, you're turning a throwaway mental model into a strong opinion. Most of the people you define as 'elite' are very likely low-middle income service delivery specialists whom you've never met and whose roles and responsibilities you likely don't have the first clue about. You're overrating the few token twats and narcissists the media bring to your ear, and are using the usual organisational bureaucracy that accompanies every single scale management context on earth, public or private, as justification for pre-existing assumptions.

What makes you think the handful of annoying people you see on telly qualify as a numerically meaningful class? You just dont have the data to know. Certainly, and we know from salary data, most of those involved in the delivery of social services will absolutely not be 'elite' by any known standard, or will be taking a major cut on their commercial worth if they are well-qualified. And a good number will be approaching underclass status and will never ever be able to buy a home. But somehow, they don't count as a 'class'; that distinction only applies to a very likely small minority of annoying grifters.

Have you not encountered the very same twats in work and business? They're everywhere. Sometimes you wonder how anyone makes money, but then you realise yes, they are everywhere, and hence that's the normal standard. Anyone who thinks this stuff is the sole purview of social services or Aboriginal communities can't have much world experience.

The serious adult problem is never about universals like the odd annoying twat or bureaucratic inefficiency. They're par for the course; yet, what's also par for the course is that countries without such services and funding are highly likely to be chaotic, violent, failed states. And that's because progress is never ever about anything even close to perfection. Progress is about tiny gains despite flaws and twats.

Do you also think the business people you see on TV who made millions overnight represent what business usually looks like? Most successful businesses, organisations and projects eke out small gains amidst some larger losses and larger gains. You just hear about the big winners because they're filtered to your attention.

In the very same way, you only hear from complete outliers and dic£wads on social issues. By definition, the average person in the field making small gains simply doesn't come to your attention, despite being part of a vast class that is actually numerically significant.

You clearly have zero data or credible handle on the subject, and certainly have little concrete to say about this imaginary elite class, or on the views of Aboriginal peoples. All you have is throwaway talk which no one would pay you 50 cents for. Somehow, you're happy with that when it comes to other's lives and wellbeing. I hope you demand better from those pontificating on your own life.

seems pretty judgemental considering how long you have been away from Australia, and the fact that slangman said he has just been there and conversed with the locals.

[pietillidie]

^Judgemental? It's an extremely minimal standard of logic that you'd demand be followed by anyone determining anything that impacts your life. 'Conversed with a few locals'? What next, cycling across China to measure inflation?

Why do you think everyone votes and those votes get properly collected, recorded and tallied? They don't send someone for a walk about town to chat to a few people to find out who won an election.

"News just in. We went for a stroll around Mount Martha and spoke to Bob, Mary and Sam. Based on our conversations, the AEC has declared Tony Abbott the new PM."

And there's zero information about this supposed class of elites. At least we could in theory survey the views of indigenous people. But you can't even find imaginary entities like this supposed elite class to poll them.

I know people who have lived and worked for decades with Aboriginal peoples, and they wouldn't dream of claiming the folks they've spoken to represent the entirety of Aboriginal peoples.

Why does that even need explaining? And yet here we are.

Fantasies of knowledge or inner impulses about things don't cut it when you're dealing with people's lives. Chatting to a few people as a proxy for statistical knowledge wouldn't pass the logic section of a primary school maths test; why is it an adequate basis for making decisions that impact the lives of Aboriginal peoples? We use experience to help understand statistical data, but even then we expect it to be extensive experience.

Of course, that's exactly why the buffoons should never have reduced the matter to a trite one-time referendum. Many problems have no clear solution and need to be tackled using various approaches over time. Did they learn nothing from the extremely costly referendum everyone now regrets but which will take years or decades to correct, Brexit?

Even so, that's still no excuse for people claiming to know things they don't know or couldn't possibly know. It's okay to not know things, for goodness' sake.

[think positive]

^Judgemental? It's an extremely minimal standard of logic that you'd demand be followed by anyone determining anything that impacts your life. 'Conversed with a few locals'? What next, cycling across China to measure inflation?

Why do you think everyone votes and those votes get properly collected, recorded and tallied? They don't send someone for a walk about town to chat to a few people to find out who won an election.

"News just in. We went for a stroll around Mount Martha and spoke to Bob, Mary and Sam. Based on our conversations, the AEC has declared Tony Abbott the new PM."

And there's zero information about this supposed class of elites. At least we could in theory survey the views of indigenous people. But you can't even find imaginary entities like this supposed elite class to poll them.

I know people who have lived and worked for decades with Aboriginal peoples, and they wouldn't dream of claiming the folks they've spoken to represent the entirety of Aboriginal peoples.

Why does that even need explaining? And yet here we are.

Fantasies of knowledge or inner impulses about things don't cut it when you're dealing with people's lives. Chatting to a few people as a proxy for statistical knowledge wouldn't pass the logic section of a primary school maths test; why is it an adequate basis for making decisions that impact the lives of Aboriginal peoples? We use experience to help understand statistical data, but even then we expect it to be extensive experience.

Of course, that's exactly why the buffoons should never have reduced the matter to a trite one-time referendum. Many problems have no clear solution and need to be worked on over time. Have they learned nothing from the referendum everyone now regrets but which will take years or decades to correct, Brexit?

Even so, that's still no excuse for people claiming to know things they don't know or couldn't possibly know. It's okay not to know things, for goodness' sake.

look in the mirror

[pietillidie]

Regarding what? Go on?

[David]

[David]

[stui magpie]

In relation to your first question, a resounding Yes.

Albo and co really thought this would be a slam dunk and deliberately decided to go light on info (cos they didn't want to confuse the poor peasants) and rely on the vibe of good will they thought they had and just say, "Trust us, vote yes".

They scored a resounding own goal that blew up the net and killed their own goalkeeper.

[pietillidie]

[stui magpie]

^

That's the problem, they treated it like a political process when it's Change management 101. A referendum is essentially about making a change to the constitution. There's dozens of different change management models, they could have just picked the one that best suited this situation and follow the steps.

Basic things like the first step is to create a compelling reason for change, then create a sense of urgency, provide as much detail as you reasonably can then communicate, communicate and communicate, listen to feedback and commmunicate more.

[slangman]

^Judgemental? It's an extremely minimal standard of logic that you'd demand be followed by anyone determining anything that impacts your life. 'Conversed with a few locals'? What next, cycling across China to measure inflation?

Why do you think everyone votes and those votes get properly collected, recorded and tallied? They don't send someone for a walk about town to chat to a few people to find out who won an election.

"News just in. We went for a stroll around Mount Martha and spoke to Bob, Mary and Sam. Based on our conversations, the AEC has declared Tony Abbott the new PM."

And there's zero information about this supposed class of elites. At least we could in theory survey the views of indigenous people. But you can't even find imaginary entities like this supposed elite class to poll them.

I know people who have lived and worked for decades with Aboriginal peoples, and they wouldn't dream of claiming the folks they've spoken to represent the entirety of Aboriginal peoples.

Why does that even need explaining? And yet here we are.

Fantasies of knowledge or inner impulses about things don't cut it when you're dealing with people's lives. Chatting to a few people as a proxy for statistical knowledge wouldn't pass the logic section of a primary school maths test; why is it an adequate basis for making decisions that impact the lives of Aboriginal peoples? We use experience to help understand statistical data, but even then we expect it to be extensive experience.

Of course, that's exactly why the buffoons should never have reduced the matter to a trite one-time referendum. Many problems have no clear solution and need to be tackled using various approaches over time. Did they learn nothing from the extremely costly referendum everyone now regrets but which will take years or decades to correct, Brexit?

Even so, that's still no excuse for people claiming to know things they don't know or couldn't possibly know. It's okay to not know things, for goodness' sake.

I have never claimed that this man was speaking on behalf of all Aboriginal people. That is a total fabrication on your behalf that clearly demonstrates your lack of comprehension of my post.

You and I clearly have different views on what constitutes “political elite”.
I stand by my opinion as I'm sure you will stand by yours and thats ok!. I already picture you as a character in Utopia.

I could dismantle your lack of comprehension and ridiculous fabrications that you have attributed to me further but tbh i can’t be bothered.

[Jezza]

Redbridge poll published today.

National = Yes 39, No 61

NSW = Yes 39, No 61
VIC = Yes 45, No 55
QLD = Yes 35, No 65
Other states = Yes 38, No 62

https://amp.abc.net.au/article/102832938

[eddiesmith]

Wow, Victoria and NSW were supposed to be slam dunk Yes votes.

Hard to see how this makes a big difference internationally, can’t see most people caring to be honest.