Indigenous Voice to Parliament

[pietillidie]

^Yeah, David, that's great. At his age it's surely not the content, but rather the independence and creative reasoning. The problem is kids learning to mimic mum, dad and grandad, with the worst case of all being mimicking mum and dad to get their approval.

Learning is going to take place over time; the only thing that can hinder it, to use Freudian terminology, is an overactive super ego; that creepy pang of guilt from failing to please mum and dad.

That's why so many adult voters resemble cult or gang members; in the back of their mind they're still pleasing the adults of their childhoods. It's also why the very notion of culturally associating with a formal political party is even creepy; who wants to subordinate their brain to someone else's fixed parameters?

[eddiesmith]

He may have indigenous classmates and wouldn’t even know it, it seems these days most indigenous Australians are whiter than me!

See link

[David]

[pietillidie]

^Hahaha, love it. Can't wait to meet him one day.

[David]

[David]

Anyway, back to the topic at hand, this is a very good piece by an Indigenous woman who’s considering voting no. Well worth reading and thinking about whatever your position on the Voice:

https://arena.org.au/notes-of-an-arrernte-undecided

By far what has been the most challenging part of this debate for me to stomach, though, is the enforced duality of the debate, whereby the Yes side is framing itself as the progressive and anti-racist side while framing the No side as the regressive and racist side. The impacts of this have been manifold. For one, they have effectively silenced discussions from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people who may be voting No, or be undecided, because we question the order of priorities, the claims that the Uluru Convention was actually representative, see proper recognition of Indigenous sovereignty as the real item of pressing business, or any number of other things. It’s more convenient to claim that some Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people don’t know what’s good for them and therefore are aligning with the ‘real racists’ rather than sit back and listen to some of the very robust discussions happening in our communities. I also have to say that I am yet to see any real evidence that the Yes side is, in fact, anti-racist. You cannot vilify Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, or silence our diverse voices, particularly when we’re raising questions about sovereignty and self-determination, whilst claiming an anti-racist standpoint. It simply doesn’t work.

As an Arrernte ‘undecided’, I have heard many make claims as to why my vote should shift to one of support. I remain undecided because I am yet to come across a view that truly convinces me […]

I also don’t necessarily buy that losing this referendum will set our movement back decades. In fact, the reality, as I see it, is that regardless of whether a Yes or No vote is successful when the referendum eventually happens, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people will still have to fight continuously to be heard and to have our views respected as the Original Peoples of this land. Fights such as land rights will continue. We will still be pushing to have the recommendations from both the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custodyand the Bringing them Home report instituted. We will still have to fight for cultural rights, for language rights. I doubt very much our need to gather on the street every 26 January to mark the Day of Mourning will be diminished. A Voice may be able to advise on all these matters but only governments will have the power to do something about them, so the fight will be far from over. We could end up with another Northern Territory Intervention tomorrow, regardless of what a Voice advises the government.

If I had any advice for the Australian public at large right now, it would be to stop, sit back, and engage in some deep listening when it comes to the conversations happening in Indigenous communities. In a couple of months’ time, you will have an important decision to make at the ballot box. You owe it to yourselves, to our communities and to future generations to be as informed on this decision as you possibly can be.

[stui magpie]

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-09-15/ ... /102856660

Here's another interesting article from the ABC Fact Check regarding all the so called Indigenous agencies and money already being spent that's being circulated on Social Media.

As expected, the claims are grossly exagerated and misleading.

[slangman]

Anyway, back to the topic at hand, this is a very good piece by an Indigenous woman who’s considering voting no. Well worth reading and thinking about whatever your position on the Voice:

https://arena.org.au/notes-of-an-arrernte-undecided

By far what has been the most challenging part of this debate for me to stomach, though, is the enforced duality of the debate, whereby the Yes side is framing itself as the progressive and anti-racist side while framing the No side as the regressive and racist side. The impacts of this have been manifold. For one, they have effectively silenced discussions from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people who may be voting No, or be undecided, because we question the order of priorities, the claims that the Uluru Convention was actually representative, see proper recognition of Indigenous sovereignty as the real item of pressing business, or any number of other things. It’s more convenient to claim that some Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people don’t know what’s good for them and therefore are aligning with the ‘real racists’ rather than sit back and listen to some of the very robust discussions happening in our communities. I also have to say that I am yet to see any real evidence that the Yes side is, in fact, anti-racist. You cannot vilify Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, or silence our diverse voices, particularly when we’re raising questions about sovereignty and self-determination, whilst claiming an anti-racist standpoint. It simply doesn’t work.

As an Arrernte ‘undecided’, I have heard many make claims as to why my vote should shift to one of support. I remain undecided because I am yet to come across a view that truly convinces me […]

I also don’t necessarily buy that losing this referendum will set our movement back decades. In fact, the reality, as I see it, is that regardless of whether a Yes or No vote is successful when the referendum eventually happens, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people will still have to fight continuously to be heard and to have our views respected as the Original Peoples of this land. Fights such as land rights will continue. We will still be pushing to have the recommendations from both the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custodyand the Bringing them Home report instituted. We will still have to fight for cultural rights, for language rights. I doubt very much our need to gather on the street every 26 January to mark the Day of Mourning will be diminished. A Voice may be able to advise on all these matters but only governments will have the power to do something about them, so the fight will be far from over. We could end up with another Northern Territory Intervention tomorrow, regardless of what a Voice advises the government.

If I had any advice for the Australian public at large right now, it would be to stop, sit back, and engage in some deep listening when it comes to the conversations happening in Indigenous communities. In a couple of months’ time, you will have an important decision to make at the ballot box. You owe it to yourselves, to our communities and to future generations to be as informed on this decision as you possibly can be.

I read the article which was very informative and interesting with opinions that challenged my own in an articulate manner which is always helpful.
The question that I would like Celeste Liddell to answer and probably the broader Indigenous population is what should Australia be or look like in their view considering how far removed we are from 1788 with millions of immigrants arriving, having children born here (some for generations), inter racial marriage, infrastructure, modernity in all its forms etc. Things that are not realistically removable.
What is the purpose of a Treaty and how does that work into Australia of the future?
Is it about recognition, different/ separate laws, a new constitution, languages, customs, land ownership, reparations, all of the above? If reparations were implemented, how much and for how long, who gets it, how is it spent, who pays it, how is it divided among the different tribes, do they substitute current government funding specific to ATSI people etc?
My personal view is that we need to just rip the Band-Aid off and get to the point so that as a nation we can move forward together as one otherwise we will just go round and round in circles without much progress in societal cohesion and harmony.
I do acknowledge that I haven’t read the entire Uluṟu statement and if the Voice is any indicator, I don’t hold much hope that a vision that unites us is within it.

[think positive]

[stui magpie]

David can answer for himself, but as far as Skin Colour and identity goes, I'll give you an example from when I worked in Health.

As part of closing the gap it was identified that a lot of First nations Peoples didn't say they were Aboriginal when fronting to the ED, so a process was developed called "Ask the question" where the clerks were supposed to ask everyone who presented if they were Aboriginal or Torres St Islander.

That got resistance from some people who decided not to ask the question of people they thought clearly weren't Indigenous which itself got some interesting complaints from people who weren't asked, but were Indigenous people.

They came up with a poster with a bunch of faces on it, none of whom "looked" indigenous but all were to prove a point and titled it something like.

Shit, I went to high school with 2 Aboriginal brothers, same year in school. Same father (who everyone knew was Aboriginal), dunno about the mothers. One brother was dark skinned, dark hair, the other could have been my brother. White blond hair and pale skin.

I've also met a white bloke up in the Daintree who lived in the Forest (this was 25 years ago) and had been initiated into the local tribe and given his Indigenous name by them. To them, he was accepted as one of them despite not having a drop of Aboriginal blood.

[David]

[think positive]

That’s actually very interesting.

The guy who says he would not feel right accessing assistance as an indigenous person because his life hasn’t been impacted, it would be different if he didn’t appear as just another white guy.

But there would be people who would take advantage, just as there are people abusing financial aid through social services. Human nature at its finest. Which kind of brings me to my no vote reason, that those on the panel might be made up of just another white guy types who don’t have the same morals, those who have not been through the indeginous wringer, but want the, um sympathy? And of course the power. I have zero faith in any politicians, except maybe that Phil guy! Cleary?

So, if money is put to this, where will it go, what will it achieve? Will it replace current schemes? Or will it fix the ones clearly not working?

Will this committee have any power for things that don’t affect indigenous people any more than they affect the rest of us?

Exactly what is the extent of their powers?

[David]

[stui magpie]

The short answer on what is the extent of their power is that they have none.

All they can do is make recommendations or suggestions to Government. Government retains the power as any thing they recommend would need to be set up by the government, mostly through legislation.

The Government has the power and remains accountable to the people via elections, the Voice has none.

As far as who gets on it, the principle is, at this stage, that the members of the Voice would be elected by First Nations Peoples rather than being appointed by white suits in Canberra. Some from each state and territory and some especially from the rural and remote populations. You may still get some of the usual suspects in there, but they'll have been elected not appointed and if they don't represent the people who elected them they'll be voted out next time around.

In a typical Beaurocracy, committes (which the Voice would be) can appoint subcommittees. So, if the NT Government wanted some advice on how to better fix youth detention and family violence in their remote communities, it could ask the Voice who could then directly consult with the local communities effected, see what they thought, and come up with recommendations to the Government. It may not get better outcomes (but you'd think it should) but either way, the people have had a say in policy that effects them so they have to own it, rather than it being done to them by canverra suits.

[stui magpie]

Took the Grandson with me for a walk around the markets. At one of them were several Yes campaigners offering pamplets. As we walked some heading back to the car, 1 asked if I wanted some info, I said No thanks, I've got it, then she said to Ty did he want a badge? of course he did and put it on soon as we got back to the car.

I asked him if he knew what the badge was, he said No.(It said, I'm voting yes)

I asked him if he'd heard about the referendum about the Aboriginal Voice. He said that he had and he thought it was a good idea as it would help out the poor Aboriginal people.

I said cool, just wanted to make sure you knew what you were wearing, and left it at that.