Skip to main content
Topic: The Voice (Read 9325 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

The Voice

The Lidia Thorpe resignation has me thinking that there will be a number of issues that will crop up in the discussion of the up coming referendum.
Rather than getting mixed up with other topics in the "General Discussion" thread it probably deserves a thread of it's own

I'd suspect the majority of indigenous people support the proposal but there is some dissent.
Some like Thorpe want to see a Treaty first, others would prefer that issues of disadvantage should take precedence....to me, these all seem interconnected.

The problem with referendums though is that they are often lost in the fog.
If they are too vague they don't succeed.
Often it's the opponents who create that fog, but the job of the proposers is to keep it simple.




Re: The Voice

Reply #1
Thorpe is one of those who seems disingenuous when it comes to seeking resolution.

To some she comes across as a sort of treasure hunter, like she has she found a profitable political movement to attached her name to, a bit like Winston Peters across the ditch. They profit more from conflict not resolution, so they tend to cause issues rather than solve them!

Thorpe looks like she is happy enough to profit off the back of society's misery!
The Force Awakens!


Re: The Voice

Reply #3
My question is why do we need a referendum for this, its the right thing to do, just bloody well do it.
2017-16th
2018-Wooden Spoon
2019-16th
2020-dare to dream? 11th is better than last I suppose
2021-Pi$$ or get off the pot
2022- Real Deal or more of the same? 0.6%
2023- "Raise the Standard" - M. Voss Another year wasted Bar Set
2024-Back to the drawing boardNo excuses, its time

Re: The Voice

Reply #4
I don't think this 'Voice' will improve aboriginal lives one iota.
It will not improve indigenous education outcomes.
It will not get alcohol out of indigenous affairs.
It will not make indigenous families more stable.
It won't improve indigenous chances of getting a job.
It won't improve anything but to allow the politically active few to get higher profiles.
I can't see why people would waste their time on something like this. There are a lot of problems, but an extra talk fest isn't going to provide money, train people or anything else constructive.

There are models for the 'Voice' to look at: a number of Scandinavian states and Canada have similar things. Not one of them has actually made a significant difference for the native people involved. What they have done is try to gather more power unto themselves, so they can veto decisions made by their governments. They are trying to become another form of government for the states involved.
The ABC showed a number of these in action in 'Foreign Correspondent' episodes over the last couple of years. Not one has improved the life of the native people they supposedly represent by any measure they could show. But they have been involved in actions to stop developments, particularly of green energy sources (Norway's Sami Parliament, for example is trying to stymie government investment in the far north in the 'green energy' systems the Norwegian state is desperate to produce.)
If these are the models our indigenous people are looking at, then they are wasting a lot of time and money.

We need, as a nation, to improve the lot of our indigenous people. But I don't think this is a good way of doing it.
Live Long and Prosper!

Re: The Voice

Reply #5
The Voice is far more about recognition than it is about legislative influence. 

You are probably right, Crash - in itself, it won't change too many things.  The problems you mention are so big that trying to tackle them will be a monumental task.  For years now, successive governments have implemented programs to address these issues, with limited success.  The one common thread to these programs has been the Indigenous people being told what is best for them. 

I think the Voice will be the first step in a long process.  Many Aboriginal leaders have suggested that if this first step was to fall over, the whole process is doomed, that change will never be possible. 

Opponents to Referenda spend much of their time scaremongering about what will happen if the change is implemented - in this case I think it is more imperative that we appreciate the consequences if the referendum fails.
This is now the longest premiership drought in the history of the Carlton Football Club - more evidence of climate change?

Re: The Voice

Reply #6
Thorpe is one of those who seems disingenuous when it comes to seeking resolution.

To some she comes across as a sort of treasure hunter, like she has she found a profitable political movement to attached her name to, a bit like Winston Peters across the ditch. They profit more from conflict not resolution, so they tend to cause issues rather than solve them!

Thorpe looks like she is happy enough to profit off the back of society's misery!

No, LP, you've misread Thorpe completely (and Winston Peters for that matter).

Lidia is one of a small but significant group of Indigenous Australians who believe that sovereignty was never conceded, and there's quite a solid argument to back up their argument.  For them, accepting the Voice would mean conceding sovereignty so a treaty has to come first.

I have spent far too long debating their beliefs and it's clear to me that it's an entrenched cross-generational philosophical position that is unlikely to change.  It's not about profit and there's probably no coherent plan or shared vision of what a resolution would look like.  That puts them at odds with more pragmatic folk who are more concerned about addressing disadvantage.  That's not to say that Thorpe and her compatriots aren't about addressing disadvantage, they just see a different way to bring about change.

I'm gobsmacked that the Greens couldn't see that Thorpe's philosophical position would conflict with the party's policies.  I guess that they felt that the advantage to be gained from having an Indigenous senator was worth the risk but it has exposed them for the rabble they are.

Interestingly, the two Indigenous politicians openly opposed to the Voice are from opposite sides of the political divide.  For many Australians, the idea that Indigenous Australians reflect the broader population in their political views is quite novel and different Indigenous views about the Voice is perplexing. 

As for Winston Peters, he's one of the most pragmatic yet principled politicians going around. 
“Why don’t you knock it off with them negative waves? Why don’t you dig how beautiful it is out here? Why don’t you say something righteous and hopeful for a change?”  Oddball

Re: The Voice

Reply #7
No, LP, you've misread Thorpe completely (and Winston Peters for that matter).

Lidia is one of a small but significant group of Indigenous Australians who believe that sovereignty was never conceded, and there's quite a solid argument to back up their argument.  For them, accepting the Voice would mean conceding sovereignty so a treaty has to come first.
I think you have confused her ability to identify a profitable cause with having genuine interest in it.

I have spent many years travelling to and working in NZ, and I've seen Peters up close and I can identify the very same actions in Thorpe. Remove the money and fame from the issue, and just like Peters you will find Thorpe evaporates, the issue becomes something for subordinates to deal with. Leaving behind a trail of shattered little people who thought they might actually get some help.

You think it was some great philosophical insight that prompted Thorpe's altruistic move, while I pretty sure without the financial windfall the switch would never have happened. I pretty sure that many taxpayers, philanthropists and benefactors who sponsored Thorpe's green ticket aren't feeling the love today, they would almost feel defrauded!
The Force Awakens!

Re: The Voice

Reply #8
I think you have confused her ability to identify a profitable cause with having genuine interest in it.

I have spent many years travelling to and working in NZ, and I've seen Peters up close and I can identify the very same actions in Thorpe. Remove the money and fame from the issue, and just like Peters you will find Thorpe evaporates, the issue becomes something for subordinates to deal with. Leaving behind a trail of shattered little people who thought they might actually get some help.

You think it was some great philosophical insight that prompted Thorpe's altruistic move, while I pretty sure without the financial windfall the switch would never have happened. I pretty sure that many taxpayers, philanthropists and benefactors who sponsored Thorpe's green ticket aren't feeling the love today, they would almost feel defrauded!

Of course you’re right LP, no-one ever does anything for a cause or principles. It always has to be for financial gain.  Knowing the Thorpes for over 40 years and listening to them espouse their beliefs obviously blinded me to their real motivation 🙄

Lidia dumping the Greens smacks of impropriety but Blind Freddy could see that it was going to happen.

Peters has been Deputy PM (twice), Treasurer, and Foreign Minister over his long parliamentary career.  He is a member of the establishment and comfortable with government and parliamentary conventions.  Thorpe is a very different kettle of fish and the only thing they have in common is being guided by strong beliefs.
“Why don’t you knock it off with them negative waves? Why don’t you dig how beautiful it is out here? Why don’t you say something righteous and hopeful for a change?”  Oddball

Re: The Voice

Reply #9
I’m starting to come around to this point of view.

My question is why do we need a referendum for this, its the right thing to do, just bloody well do it.

Just do it!
We don’t need a referendum.
Just set it up in consultation with indigenous leaders. That’s a uniting process.

I think the Voice will be the first step in a long process.  Many Aboriginal leaders have suggested that if this first step was to fall over, the whole process is doomed, that change will never be possible. 

Opponents to Referenda spend much of their time scaremongering about what will happen if the change is implemented - in this case I think it is more imperative that we appreciate the consequences if the referendum fails.

Yep.
Let’s look ahead to possible results. If it’s an overwhelming ‘Yes’ vote to the Voice, say 80% to 20%, we’ll have no real issues. Much as with the same -sex marriage vote. Just on stated positions you would expect some resistance, but the people will have spoken.

But if it’s a 60% to 40%, a 50-50 result or the referendum is defeated the people will also have spoken but it will leave a pretty divided nation. For the indigenous people a loss will mean there will be sadness, but also a lot of anger and frustration.

The argument against legislation v referendum is that... ‘down the track a future government can just overturn such legislation.’
No they won’t.
If the process is working well, and advancing and helping with indigenous issues a government won’t scrap it. They may modify it, but unless the structure is clearly set out and voted on in the refererendum (and it won't be) that's open to future governments anyway.
If some non-indigenous people, who at the moment are feeling a bit uncertain, can see that it doesn’t really impact there will be few complaints and no pressure on a government to repeal it.
I suspect overturning the Voice will be very low on the list of priorities of any future government.

Use the money set aside for the referendum to establish the Voice and divert the remaining money into indigenous programs.


Re: The Voice

Reply #10
Of course you’re right LP, no-one ever does anything for a cause or principles. It always has to be for financial gain.  Knowing the Thorpes for over 40 years and listening to them espouse their beliefs obviously blinded me to their real motivation 🙄
There are plenty of people to act on principles and demonstrate it, I have no issue with them so I don't have to discuss them, they are numerous I suppose because they are the vast majority of society so they blend into the background of public affairs.

It's the one's who seemingly act in a way that is less than genuine that get discussed the most, so perhaps if you are that close you best give Thorpe some friendly advice then on how not to burn good will by appearing disingenuous.

As an aside, there have been several suburban councillors replaced / removed over the last few months, having been elected on false pretences or hidden agendas that were latterly exposed. We don't blink about that, we accept that is their fate and resigning or falling on their own sword is the right thing to do, so why is it different for an Indigenous Senator?

The right thing to do for Thorpe is to resign and run at the next election under her new banner.
The Force Awakens!

Re: The Voice

Reply #11
I’m starting to come around to this point of view.

Just do it!
We don’t need a referendum.
Just set it up in consultation with indigenous leaders. That’s a uniting process.

I think its so those in charge don't lose 'votes' by people who may oppose.
If it goes to a vote, those in charge have no blood on their hands.
If they just did it, they would.....in some peoples eyes.

Re: The Voice

Reply #12
Those fear mongering are only able to sustain their argument because it's contains an element of potential truth, even in the absence of intent those doubts remain.

If those for and against amend their position to remove the ambiguity that exists, it will go a long way with the majority of people. Trusting people won't in some way misuse a quorum in the future isn't enough, it should be unambiguous in it's formulation and implementation. But it seems some still actively pursue a desire for things to remain vague, is that a cornerstone of change for the good, or the thin end of the wedge!
The Force Awakens!

Re: The Voice

Reply #13
Thorpe has the problem faced by previous politicians who have had a predominately one item agenda: when surrounded by a group of like-minded people they misread the room.

Her never ending call for a treaty before the Voice is playing right into the hands of conservative federal politicians - especially the Nationals.

Her enthusiasm for a treaty knows no bounds but she refuses to provide any details as to what it would look like.  All she is doing is confusing people who have little interest in either a treaty or the Voice and could vote No  in the referendum because of competing opinions on its merits.

If the Voice is defeated then Lidia's call for a treaty will be just a pipe dream.



 

Re: The Voice

Reply #14
Thorpe has the problem faced by previous politicians who have had a predominately one item agenda: when surrounded by a group of like-minded people they misread the room.

Her never ending call for a treaty before the Voice is playing right into the hands of conservative federal politicians - especially the Nationals.

Her enthusiasm for a treaty knows no bounds but she refuses to provide any details as to what it would look like.  All she is doing is confusing people who have little interest in either a treaty or the Voice and could vote No  in the referendum because of competing opinions on its merits.

If the Voice is defeated then Lidia's call for a treaty will be just a pipe dream.

I’m not sure that Lidia and those who share her views know exactly what it is they want.  She is opposed to the Victorian treaty process and I suspect that’s because those elected to the assembly don’t share her views, but then, very few do.

Sadly, Lidia and Jacinta Price are considered more newsworthy than the likes of Jana Stewart, Marcia Langton, Tom Calma and Noel Pearson (except when he’s kicking heads literally).

If the Voice doesn’t get up, the gap will get considerably wider.
“Why don’t you knock it off with them negative waves? Why don’t you dig how beautiful it is out here? Why don’t you say something righteous and hopeful for a change?”  Oddball