The Necessity of Reparation for Historic Injustices
indo-dreaming wrote:southernraw wrote:iGeez Indo. How can i possibly be mean to you now!!!!! Bastard!!
Nah was thinking the samendo-dreaming wrote:blackers wrote:seeds wrote:It needs to be in the constitution so it can’t be scrapped. If it isn’t working it has to be fixed no matter who’s in power.
Yup.
, don't wanna get into a heated tit for tat, but thought i may have raised some valid points to answer your question about the referendum. But you're right, we'll never see eye to eye on it, so will have to just agree to disagree and i'll try not to take that personally.
Yeah no doubt about it, you're a goer. And i respect that.
Can't always agree on everything but no doubt could sit down and have a beer and accept the differences that we do have.
Cheers for your honest response and kind words.
Thats a great trait and i respect that.
Now if only we could get you over to barrack for the Bombers instead of bloody Collingwood!Ha ha classic the typical arrogance of progressives .
So much for proper discussion, i guess there really is no reason other than i dont want my thing changed cause im right, i have to be right, so i dont want anybody changing it.
At least your honest i guess.
Hey Indo.
I listed some pretty damn good reasons a few posts above based around the last 200 years of politics in Australia primarily being based in the Western way of thinking and also around the topic of trauma and asked for your thoughts on it and how it relates to why this is one of the fundamental reasons that the constitution should be changed...yet...you completely dismissed it and keep carrying on about how nobody can tell you why it should go ahead.
I'm challenging you to address the issue of trauma, inter-generational trauma in Indigenous Australian history, and how it may possibly contribute to todays issues as well as the opportunity for indigenous Australians to finally establish a permanent place in what has been a Westernized, colonizers politics and parliament.
What are your thoughts on this trauma and how it plays out to the current day?@southernraw
Do you honestly want to go over that whole issue again???
I honestly dont think it's going to do anyone any good rehashing that old ground as we both know we strongly disagree with each other in these areas, i disagree strongly about your views and also believe they are extremely damaging to Indigenous people who believe them, and i know the views that i hold you dont agree with at all and probably feel they are damaging to Indigenous people, so unless we can really bring something new to the discussion(which i highly doubt) is it really worth it?
We both know it's just going to end up getting heated and a little ugly, just seems a little pointless to do it again when its all been said before, maybe if i had read a book on it recently i might have motivation to do it again, but i kind of lack the motivation at the moment..
Also i think it would get pretty old very quick for everyone who has read it all before.
Plus to be honest while there isn't much i agree with you on, as strange as it must sound i actually have a soft spot for you, while i dont agree with you on the whole Covid/freedom thing, i did like the fact you could think for yourself and not just go, hey my political/.social ideology is this and atomically take this set view on Covid or lockdowns etc, so you earnt respect from me there. (not that you care, im just saying)
And while i still don't think you were totally correct, with the beauty of hindsight i do think you and others had some decent points, i do think we went to far, i guess i also just wanted to get back to Indo :D (basically get your jab karnts so we can get this shit over with)
Plus after seeing your facebook profile last year or whatever i saw you were just a normal surfer, real profile pic, feed not full of political garbage, basically someone that in real life id most likely get along with and just disagree on politics/social issues that i rarely talk about in real life anyway.
Oh and i notice you are one of the rare people here that can apologies or admit they are wrong sometimes ( i recal us making peace after it got heated one day), basically i think your a good guy, we just dont agree on a lot of shit, while many other people here that i disagree with i think are just complete tossers.
Ha ha sorry for the honest compliments, just telling it how i see it, you can still bag the shit out of me, im cool with that no offence taken :D
Maybe in the future id be up for doing it all again, but not now, heart just wouldn't be in it.
Geez Indo. How can i possibly be mean to you now!!!!! Bastard!!
Nah was thinking the same, don't wanna get into a heated tit for tat, but thought i may have raised some valid points to answer your question about the referendum. But you're right, we'll never see eye to eye on it, so will have to just agree to disagree and i'll try not to take that personally.
Yeah no doubt about it, you're a goer. And i respect that.
Can't always agree on everything but no doubt could sit down and have a beer and accept the differences that we do have.
Cheers for your honest response and kind words.
Thats a great trait and i respect that.
Now if only we could get you over to barrack for the Bombers instead of bloody Collingwood!
Up the Mighty Bombers!
A microcosm into the referendum? hehe.
https://www.sen.com.au/news/2022/11/11/essendon-hopes-key-appointment-wi...
And we're off and racing.
"South Australia becomes first state to enact Indigenous voice to parliament."
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/mar/26/south-australia-b...
indo-dreaming wrote:blackers wrote:seeds wrote:It needs to be in the constitution so it can’t be scrapped. If it isn’t working it has to be fixed no matter who’s in power.
Yup.
Ha ha classic the typical arrogance of progressives .
So much for proper discussion, i guess there really is no reason other than i dont want my thing changed cause im right, i have to be right, so i dont want anybody changing it.
At least your honest i guess.
It has nothing to do with our arrogance and I’m no progressive.
It is actually the reason!
I didn’t come up with it even though I agree with it. I also would be pleased that constitutionally First Nations are recognised as such. As Supa said, I don’t gain or lose anything if it gets up. Same goes for you Indo so it begs the question why some are so vehemently against it.
AndyM wrote:And we're off and racing.
"South Australia becomes first state to enact Indigenous voice to parliament."
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/mar/26/south-australia-b...
Bloody ripper Andy M.
Momentum is growing.
I can only see good things coming out of this movement if it goes' all the way.
Yep, there's momentum building.
And once again, it makes you wonder why people would be so strongly against it.
Maybe some would just prefer more milk in the coffee, so to speak.
I think the good thing is, as this referendum gets closer, we'll see all the racists come out of the closet.
I think the bad thing is, as this referendum gets closer we'll see all the racists come out of the closet.
And just to be clear, that has nothing to do with any of the posters on here. I think it's a fair and robust conversation.
But i've already been bailed up 3 times by rich, white property owners (in the millions) who have felt that they need to tell me about how bad aboriginal people are and how they'll definitely be voting no in the referendum. Without provocation. Like i'm some kind of sounding board for their outright racism because i'm friendly..and white?
To the person i put my views straight back in their faces and now they all avoid me. haha.
Watch this as it unfolds because this topic is going to make alot of people very uncomfortable.
And i think it's a good question posed by Seeds on why you would oppose it as well if it doesn't affect you either way.
seeds wrote:indo-dreaming wrote:blackers wrote:seeds wrote:It needs to be in the constitution so it can’t be scrapped. If it isn’t working it has to be fixed no matter who’s in power.
Yup.
Ha ha classic the typical arrogance of progressives .
So much for proper discussion, i guess there really is no reason other than i dont want my thing changed cause im right, i have to be right, so i dont want anybody changing it.
At least your honest i guess.
It has nothing to do with our arrogance and I’m no progressive.
It is actually the reason!
I didn’t come up with it even though I agree with it. I also would be pleased that constitutionally First Nations are recognised as such. As Supa said, I don’t gain or lose anything if it gets up. Same goes for you Indo so it begs the question why some are so vehemently against it.
With all respect thats not at all a reason, it makes no sense and if you see below legal experts seem to suggest it's not possible to "amended or improve" once in the constitution as you suggest.
This is possibly the best information i can find on the issue around the question and it's from a very good source "WA law society journal" but is re published here, unfortunately it doesn't allow you to copy and paste so I took a screen shot of the bit about the constitution aspect, the rest of the article is also a real good read, one of the best reads ive read on the issue. (funny enough these experts in law also see ATSIC as an advisory body too)
https://www.businessnews.com.au/article/Seven-questions-before-the-Voice...
Here is the credentials of the author, as you can see it seems to be his area of expertise.
BTW. Im not opposed to a voice as such, only opposed to things being cemented in the constitution without any real reason other than playing politics.
PS. Cheers Southernraw
Cheers Indo.
You could refer to an article written by Bert DeVilliers in the WA Law Society Journal, an academic, or you could refer to two former Chief Justices of the High Court of Australia, Murray Gleeson, a Howard appointment and Robert French, also former President of the Australian Association of Constitutional Law, a Gillard appointment.
"On July 18, the former chief justice of the High Court of Australia, Murray Gleeson, delivered a powerful endorsement of the proposal for constitutional recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples through a First Nations Voice, describing it as a “worthwhile project”.
Two weeks later, another former chief justice, Robert French, wrote an essay in The Australian explaining that the constitutional entrenchment of a First Nations Voice would be part of Australians’ journey to know “who we are as a nation”. "
https://theconversation.com/a-worthwhile-project-why-two-chief-justices-...
I wonder who's opinions would carry more weight?
Further to my comment above, if you read what De Villiers has written, you will see the fundamental misunderstanding he has in how The Voice proposal works, The principle of the existence of a Voice is what is proposed in the referendum, not it's operation, that is a matter of passing legislation. So if the body becomes flawed it does not require another referendum, but more legislation. He doesn't understand what is being proposed and frankly, as someone with a Law Degree, I can say I'm glad he wasn't my Con.Law lecturer.
@adam 12 , don’t think your link is working, is this what you were posting ? https://theconversation.com/a-worthwhile-project-why-two-chief-justices-...
Adam12 said
‘The principle of the existence of a Voice is what is proposed in the referendum, not it's operation, that is a matter of passing legislation. So if the body becomes flawed it does not require another referendum, but more legislation.’
What I said but a hell of a lot better.
I’ve understood this from early on by reading rather briefly on the proposal. Blackers seems to be onto it. Missed by Indo and ilk? I don’t think so. You’re conservative overlord Spud and his subordinates will have a hand in the legislative side of things if the Voice passes. Spud knows this but he’s certainly not been forthcoming with the Australian people.
seeds wrote:Adam12 said
‘The principle of the existence of a Voice is what is proposed in the referendum, not it's operation, that is a matter of passing legislation. So if the body becomes flawed it does not require another referendum, but more legislation.’
What I said but a hell of a lot better.
I’ve understood this from early on by reading rather briefly on the proposal. Blackers seems to be onto it. Missed by Indo and ilk? I don’t think so. You’re conservative overlord Spud and his subordinates will have a hand in the legislative side of things if the Voice passes. Spud knows this but he’s certainly not been forthcoming with the Australian people.
Yep, Indo's academic doesn't know what he's talking about. Here's one who does;
"What does constitutional enshrinement mean?
To say the Voice is “constitutionally enshrined” does not mean all of the detail of its design is put into the Constitution. It also does not mean it can only be changed with a referendum.
Rather, it means the core function of the Voice should be included in the Constitution, alongside a power enabling the Commonwealth parliament to determine its composition, powers and procedures in legislation.
As former Chief Justice of Australia Murray Gleeson explained, the Voice would be “constitutionally entrenched but legislatively controlled”.
This establishes a balance between a constitutional protection of the Voice while allowing it to be adapted to future circumstances." By Gabrielle Appleby from UNSW
https://newsroom.unsw.edu.au/news/general/indigenous-voice-must-be-enshr...
Supa, here's the link again
https://theconversation.com/a-worthwhile-project-why-two-chief-justices-...
(a-worthwhile-project-why-two-chief-justices-support-the-voice-to-parliament-and-why-that-matters-12097)
Yeah, it keeps linking to a footy article so I have included the title of the article above, although it just worked when I tried it again.
So I guess I will just wait for Indo, to quote his own words, to:
"A- Not reply"...or
"B- Admit you were wrong"... or
" learn from your mistake" for saying "This is possibly the best information i can find on the issue around the question and it's from a very good source "WA law society journal" " and "BTW. Im not opposed to a voice as such, only opposed to things being cemented in the constitution without any real reason other than playing politics."
adam12 wrote:So I guess I will just wait for Indo, to quote his own words, to:
"A- Not reply"...or
"B- Admit you were wrong"... or
" learn from your mistake" for saying "This is possibly the best information i can find on the issue around the question and it's from a very good source "WA law society journal" " and "BTW. Im not opposed to a voice as such, only opposed to things being cemented in the constitution without any real reason other than playing politics."
Currently working and about to grab lunch, so dont have time to go read your link or get to much into a back and forth
But the guy i linked as you can see is very experienced in this field, so it does seem we have people in the know with differing views, the same goes about many other aspects of the voice and legal aspects and powers potential issues etc
This very fact says a lot, it says very loudly dont take this lightly, its not black or white or so simple as some would like us to beleive.
The onus is on Albo to provide an extremely valid reason for this to be in the constitution instead of just being like other past advisory bodies, and to provide hard evidence that all legal experts can on agree on that the issues they fear will not happen.
People talk about politicians being extreme, changing the constitution in the manner we are talking is an extreme change.
It’s silly to say that altering the Constitution is extreme.
It’s simply an example of democracy in action.
The Constitution was drafted in the 1890s and as such you would expect it to be amended to suit different time and changing social conditions.
Talk of altering the constitution as extreme is outright utter bullshit.
The founding fathers saw it as a living document (to reflect current day society) and put in place the very mechanism (referendums) to allow it to be altered.
It's typical far right reactionary politics to argue against constitutional change when a need arises.
The same argument has played out in the US recently when the Trump stacked Supreme Court overturned the 50 years of living precedent in the Roe v Wade case deferring instead to the original wording (1787) in the US constitution surrounding States and Federal rights.
Utter bullshit from the far right reactionaries
;)
https://m.
Changing the Constitution is rare in Australia, but not extreme. That's why there is a mechanism for doing so enshrined in it since it's inception.
What is extreme is the direction taken politically by the right in Australia since John Howard. They still call themselves "conservative" but they are fake conservatives, more like far right reactionaries. True conservatives respect the Rule of Law, they obey political norms, procedures and conventions, they respect our long established institutions and take advice from independent legitimate sources not cherry pick flawed contrary opinions in the face of overwhelming legitimate evidence and advice, as Indo did when he scoured the internet to find a Law Journal article written by an academic who lacks basic understanding of an issue. Law Journals are written by academics and students mostly. They don't create precedent, they don't make laws, they are not binding or persuasive in a Court, they are valuable discussion papers but can often be wrong. I myself as a law student had a paper I wrote on the Historic Shipwrecks Act published in a Law Journal and I was the worst student with the worst academic record ever to graduate from the David Derham School of Law at Monash Uni.
The last true conservative LNP leadership in Australia was under Malcolm Fraser, or perhaps John Hewson. John Howard started the slide, throwing away the fundamental convention of Ministerial Responsibility and each leader since continued the trend where we ended up with a PM like Morrison secretly swearing himself into multiple portfolios and trashing everything he came in contact with that made Australia the great democracy it once was. The moderates were purged under Abbott, the branches stacked with religious far right wing bases, the standards were abandoned, the interests of the public supplanted by the interests of lobbyists and policy formulation became non existent in favour of a relentless culture war strategy copied from the far right in the US.
They now are a party and movement dominated by Christo- fascists, grifters and political opportunists bereft of any true 'conservatism' who are willing to lie and create false narratives to hoodwink their way into power.
Getting back to Indo's crap source used to argue the Voice should not be a referendum, it is a good example of how the right seek out a contrary path or opinion, no matter how flawed, to construct a false narrative in the face of overwhelming contrary legitimate opinion they choose to ignore, to create division and undermine, or "play politics" as Indo himself accused enshrining the Voice as, that suits the interests of their donor lobbyists and masters.
They did it with climate change, they did it to justify Robodebt, taking an opinion of a compromised public service lawyer (Pulford) over the Solicitor General, the second highest Law Officer, they did it with The Murray Darling, and I could go on'
Australian voters have woken up to the ruse which is why the mainland is a sea of red.
I would welcome a true conservative movement in Australia, it is an important balance in the political spectrum, and I feel sorry for rusted- ons like Indo who identify as political conservatives because the current incarnation is a fraud on them and all of us.
Very well said adam12 especially your explanation on how the word conservative is misused; along with your recent comments on the sellouts mundine and price
There’s been some really good, well informed counter arguments to Indo. As per usual they’re belittled and ignored.
Great informative post Adam 12
I’m just glad that I’m still teachable, some good posts based on facts .
Thanks Adam12 great posts and others
That made for some good reading today Adam12!
yes great comment adam12.
But just how and why did things came to this for the LNP, and Australian politics more generally?
My assumption has always been that it was due to US influence and even pressure - both political and commercial/corporate. (This is why I'm a little anti-US. It always seemed to me that US influence has on balance been a force driving Australia in the wrong direction on many dimensions.)
adam12 wrote:Changing the Constitution is rare in Australia, but not extreme. That's why there is a mechanism for doing so enshrined in it since it's inception.
What is extreme is the direction taken politically by the right in Australia since John Howard. They still call themselves "conservative" but they are fake conservatives, more like far right reactionaries. True conservatives respect the Rule of Law, they obey political norms, procedures and conventions, they respect our long established institutions and take advice from independent legitimate sources not cherry pick flawed contrary opinions in the face of overwhelming legitimate evidence and advice, as Indo did when he scoured the internet to find a Law Journal article written by an academic who lacks basic understanding of an issue. Law Journals are written by academics and students mostly. They don't create precedent, they don't make laws, they are not binding or persuasive in a Court, they are valuable discussion papers but can often be wrong. I myself as a law student had a paper I wrote on the Historic Shipwrecks Act published in a Law Journal and I was the worst student with the worst academic record ever to graduate from the David Derham School of Law at Monash Uni.
The last true conservative LNP leadership in Australia was under Malcolm Fraser, or perhaps John Hewson. John Howard started the slide, throwing away the fundamental convention of Ministerial Responsibility and each leader since continued the trend where we ended up with a PM like Morrison secretly swearing himself into multiple portfolios and trashing everything he came in contact with that made Australia the great democracy it once was. The moderates were purged under Abbott, the branches stacked with religious far right wing bases, the standards were abandoned, the interests of the public supplanted by the interests of lobbyists and policy formulation became non existent in favour of a relentless culture war strategy copied from the far right in the US.
They now are a party and movement dominated by Christo- fascists, grifters and political opportunists bereft of any true 'conservatism' who are willing to lie and create false narratives to hoodwink their way into power.
Getting back to Indo's crap source used to argue the Voice should not be a referendum, it is a good example of how the right seek out a contrary path or opinion, no matter how flawed, to construct a false narrative in the face of overwhelming contrary legitimate opinion they choose to ignore, to create division and undermine, or "play politics" as Indo himself accused enshrining the Voice as, that suits the interests of their donor lobbyists and masters.
They did it with climate change, they did it to justify Robodebt, taking an opinion of a compromised public service lawyer (Pulford) over the Solicitor General, the second highest Law Officer, they did it with The Murray Darling, and I could go on'
Australian voters have woken up to the ruse which is why the mainland is a sea of red.
I would welcome a true conservative movement in Australia, it is an important balance in the political spectrum, and I feel sorry for rusted- ons like Indo who identify as political conservatives because the current incarnation is a fraud on them and all of us.
Way to much bullshit to reply to there
But WTF even if you had some bat shit crazy conspiracy theory views of the LNP not being conservatives and being far right (which must make those Nazis the other day, so far right they are somewhere near Pluto.)
Surely you must have forgotten about Turnball im still completely confused how he ever was in the LNP, he was more to the left than half of Labor is, i mean seriously this guy is basically credited for getting the Australian Guardian off the ground the most left leaning mainstream newspaper in Australia and getting same sex marriage passed, something Labor could have easily did but didn't.
Many conservatives claim the exact opposite that the LNP have drifted to far left, and in some ways its hard to argue with especially when you look at what happened with Covid where we had the biggest social spending government in our history and people were basically given money to not work, not to mention we saw left wing authoritarian style policy that was directly copied from the Chinese communist party approach, and much of the world looked on going WTF other than NZ and Canada who had radical left leaders.
And now in Victoria we have a LNP leader who is willing to throw a women under a bus for wanting to have women's safe spaces free from biological men, because we cant upset grown men who identify as women, but its somehow cool that women of all ages (including children and teens under age) give up their safe spaces and rights of privacy, dignity and freedom, because we live in some fantasy world where we really can change sexes. (follow the science, yeah right)
And id hate to say it, but the differences between LNP and Labor federally really isn't that big anymore, they both have moved towards each other in so many different ways, the differences are more just playing something up or down for voters, you see this around climate change that LNP spent billions on and had all kinds of policy around the issue, but played it way down for some reason, then you have Labor who dont do to much more but play it way up.
Same deal around say fossil fuels etc, both parties happy to have different public narratives set around the issue, but the reality from each party is actually very similar, you see that at state and federal level with Labor QLD supporting Adani and Labor supporting or giving approval to new gas
I guess because in reality same shit really needs to be done.
I mean even state wise there is some weird contradictions, in NSW under LNP you had a scheme to encourage EV take up with a $3,000 rebate and in Victoria, you have a scheme that taxes EVs by KM, i believe only place in the world.
Again we see it with defence and Subs,
To me the gap between the two parties is currently at it smallest, it really started after Labor went to the election where Shorten lost the un-lossable because of quite radical Labor policy especially around money related things, they then did the smart thing and threw away all the radical policies, but in doing so moved towards the LNP
I really dont know which way it goes anymore is LNP Labor lite or Labor, Liberal lite?
Its really only these issues like the voice that provides a big difference, although that said LNP havent said they wont support it.
Anyway knowing you studied law, made me laugh, no wonder you are so detached from the common man and have that elitist look down on others vibe like Guy does.
BTW. Im going to be a man and admit that while my source was a good one that it does seem like he is wrong, which also makes me wrong.
Although that changes little about the fact that NOBODY has come up with any decent reason why the voice should be enshrined in the constitution???
And if anyone doesn't think a race based policy cemented in the constitution that divides us with different voices/powers is extreme, well im speechless, because call me idealistic but i believe all Australians should be treated the same and not have special voices or rights or representation.
PS. Warren Mundine says hi.
Of course its not a racial slur, cause you dont want it to be though, right.
EDIT; actually thinking about it more, a lot of these similarities go much further back, as it was actually labor who started privitsatiuon with selling off of Qantas and Commonwealth bank, and it was also Keating that first implemented indefinite mandatory detention for illegal arrivals., Howard also was first to sign the Kyoto protocol (Krudd ratfied it latter)
Anyway we are going off topic.
soggydog wrote:There’s been some really good, well informed counter arguments to Indo. As per usual they’re belittled and ignored.
God how ironic, seeing the one question ive asked hasn't been answered, despite there being so many passionate Yes voters.
If you missed it, the question was, why does the voice need to be implemented in the constitution???
And the answer "so it cant be changed/scrapped" isn't a proper answer, as we know all other attempts have failed so 15to 20 years from now for all we know we possibly could be trying to rid it from the constitution, (if possible)
adam12 did provide a link to a story that sought to provide answers to why . Sunday 4:57. adam12. Then posted again by SF.
Answers from 2 judges
Check it out.
adam12 wrote:Changing the Constitution is rare in Australia, but not extreme. That's why there is a mechanism for doing so enshrined in it since it's inception.
What is extreme is the direction taken politically by the right in Australia since John Howard. They still call themselves "conservative" but they are fake conservatives, more like far right reactionaries. True conservatives respect the Rule of Law, they obey political norms, procedures and conventions, they respect our long established institutions and take advice from independent legitimate sources not cherry pick flawed contrary opinions in the face of overwhelming legitimate evidence and advice, as Indo did when he scoured the internet to find a Law Journal article written by an academic who lacks basic understanding of an issue. Law Journals are written by academics and students mostly. They don't create precedent, they don't make laws, they are not binding or persuasive in a Court, they are valuable discussion papers but can often be wrong. I myself as a law student had a paper I wrote on the Historic Shipwrecks Act published in a Law Journal and I was the worst student with the worst academic record ever to graduate from the David Derham School of Law at Monash Uni.
The last true conservative LNP leadership in Australia was under Malcolm Fraser, or perhaps John Hewson. John Howard started the slide, throwing away the fundamental convention of Ministerial Responsibility and each leader since continued the trend where we ended up with a PM like Morrison secretly swearing himself into multiple portfolios and trashing everything he came in contact with that made Australia the great democracy it once was. The moderates were purged under Abbott, the branches stacked with religious far right wing bases, the standards were abandoned, the interests of the public supplanted by the interests of lobbyists and policy formulation became non existent in favour of a relentless culture war strategy copied from the far right in the US.
They now are a party and movement dominated by Christo- fascists, grifters and political opportunists bereft of any true 'conservatism' who are willing to lie and create false narratives to hoodwink their way into power.
Getting back to Indo's crap source used to argue the Voice should not be a referendum, it is a good example of how the right seek out a contrary path or opinion, no matter how flawed, to construct a false narrative in the face of overwhelming contrary legitimate opinion they choose to ignore, to create division and undermine, or "play politics" as Indo himself accused enshrining the Voice as, that suits the interests of their donor lobbyists and masters.
They did it with climate change, they did it to justify Robodebt, taking an opinion of a compromised public service lawyer (Pulford) over the Solicitor General, the second highest Law Officer, they did it with The Murray Darling, and I could go on'
Australian voters have woken up to the ruse which is why the mainland is a sea of red.
I would welcome a true conservative movement in Australia, it is an important balance in the political spectrum, and I feel sorry for rusted- ons like Indo who identify as political conservatives because the current incarnation is a fraud on them and all of us.
Yep.....
LNP not conservative, but grifting populists that have now been seen for what they are, hence the major decline in votes across Australia.
I may add that it is maybe also due to Murdoch, 9 media etc losing influence and people sourcing their news elsewhere. Lots of crap sources out there, but the bullshit from msm gets called out.
Robodebt alone should cause the LNP to be unelectable for a decade at least, as it demonstrated their total disregard / hate for some Australians, knowingly breaking the law to bully a whole cohort of the community resulting in many deaths.
Bring on ICAC.. ..
The referendum question relates to formal, constitutional recognition of the original inhabitants and the explicit requirement that the government of the day needs to provide the opportunity for representatives to provide advice on government actions that directly impact them. What's the problem? As TBB pointed out, it is not very different to the referendum proposal John Howard brought to the people. Everyone gets their chance to vote, use it as you wish.
Oh yeah, bring on ICAC.
Indo , a short response as I'm buggered, had a big day and need sleep. I agree to a point on Labor being Liberal lite, there is still a big difference, but you'd be surprised to know I could probably be as critical of them in some areas so don't get me started. Thank you for acknowledging your source was lacking. There are many real and very good reasons why the Voice needs to be enshrined, you mentioned one yourself in your post. Don't have time now but will try to convince you sometime in the future if you wish. As for my qualifications making me elitist well I laughed out loud at that, if you met me or spoke to my family or mates you'd quickly realise how far off you are with that observation. I only did 12 months professional practice at Springvale Legal Service, Legal Aid, as I had worked out late in my studies that a career in law was not for me. I made my career in hospitality and entertainment management, did pretty well, 'retired' at 38/9, and spent the rest of my life doing various things enabling me to surf as much as possible. I'm in my early 60's now and run a painting business that keeps me occupied on days there's no waves. Not particularly elitist, don't even own a suit these days!
Anyway, bed time for me.
Constance B Gibson wrote:Have a look at page 14 of this very thread.
Forget the ex-libs, show ponies, useful idiots, and idiotic same old white noise on here.
Id's an old café au lait bigot with form. Does not give a real fuck about Australian & Torres Strait Islander people.
Surprise!
From page 14:
Constance B Gibson wrote:Krist on a stick, Hutchy91, what are you on about? The National Constitutional Convention & Uluru Statement gathering was "lead by Turnbull"?! Wha?? And "I wonder where they met"??
Yikes! You're a reader, aint ya?
As for your snippet, let me put some capitalisation in here for some emphasis for ya:
"The Uluru Statement does not detail the structure of the Voice and how it will do its job. THAT IS A PROCESS SEPARATE FROM ACHIEVING CONSTITUTIONAL CHANGE. The Uluru Statement asks the Australian people to give their support at a referendum on a question of fundamental principle: that First Nations should have a Voice enshrined in the Constitution. THE DETAILS INCLUDING THE FUNCTIONS, POWERS, AND PROCESSES OF THE VOICE, WILL BE WORKED OUT BETWEEN GOVERNMENT AND FIRST NATIONS AND PUT INTO LEGISLATION."
Believe it or not, constitutional law is complex. And changing the constitution in any, way, shape or form is cumbersome to say the least. Enshrining the recognition and need for a voice in the constitution means it is pretty much set in stone, and can't be dissolved by parliamentary government-of-the-day whim. The design of the Voice - it's FUNCTIONS, POWERS, AND PROCESSES - by being determined by parliament gives it necessary flexibility and scope for change, as things change. The particular nature and design of it can even be dissolved, BUT if this occurs, there must be a 'voice' put in its place, because it will be enshrined in the constitution.
Have a gander of this, reader!
https://www.unsw.edu.au/news/2020/07/the-uluru-statement-is-not-a-vague-...
And for some real depth, strap yourself in:
https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=797348c1-a197-451b-96d2-2c1...
This is why this is a deliberate decision in the wording of the Uluru Statement. A note to save time: All questions you may have are answered in that 2nd document above.
Now, how this is weaponised by the usual suspect media, and to put it bluntly, YOU Hutchy91, and YOUR government, well...
Oh Gawd, can I hear you about to crank up with your 'hot take' on the ol' Republic referendum?? Or is it this?
Cheers!
(Zen gets it)
Painting career? i had the wrong idea of my guessing who adam 12 is. I thought myabe tattoo artist in WA. Used to be friends, then blocked and unfriended, then talked it out made up with but cant figure out how to unblock on facebook after realizing we were both being dickheads and going thru shit at the time.
Haha that fooks up Indo’s railing against the “man”. It’s tradie v tradie. Let’s rumble.
Geez that’s brought back some memories, you really do have to hand it to @info, belligerently opposed to any progress or change for Aboriginals where they are seen to be treated differently from white society. The stamina of our correspondent!! Post after post through Abbott’s attack on isolated communities, Bolt’s 18c court case and “we all have a right to be bigots debate”, Adam Goodes calling out racist remarks, the infamous milk in coffee remarks and now his opposition to the Uluru Statement and the Voice with his favourite sold outs Price and Mundine. Have I left any out? Shirley not!
blackers wrote:The referendum question relates to formal, constitutional recognition of the original inhabitants and the explicit requirement that the government of the day needs to provide the opportunity for representatives to provide advice on government actions that directly impact them. What's the problem? As TBB pointed out, it is not very different to the referendum proposal John Howard brought to the people. Everyone gets their chance to vote, use it as you wish.
The voice is about co-governance, not recognition. Recognition would be to amend the preamble to acknowledge indigenous history. Inserting a race based body and creating 2 classes of citizens is another thing entirely.
groundswell wrote:Painting career? i had the wrong idea of my guessing who adam 12 is. I thought myabe tattoo artist in WA. Used to be friends, then blocked and unfriended, then talked it out made up with but cant figure out how to unblock on facebook after realizing we were both being dickheads and going thru shit at the time.
Ha,ha Groundy. Not really a career, just something I fell into late in life. My older brother is a master painter and I started going to work with him just to hang out with him because he's such a funny bastard and we have a good laugh, didn't really expect to end up doing it but before I knew it I was booked for months and had my own business. I don't work too hard, plenty of days off when there's waves and plenty of trips away. Good 'play money' though. As for me being a WA tattooist, pretty funny, I'm a clean skin. Grew up around a lot of heavily tattooed guys back when it was only bikies, wharfies and legitimate tough guys that had them. My mother always said that even though I thought I owned my body, it was actually hers, she made it, so if I ever came home with a tatt it was coming off, and I could choose between a cheese grater or a belt sander! She was serious!
waveman wrote:blackers wrote:The referendum question relates to formal, constitutional recognition of the original inhabitants and the explicit requirement that the government of the day needs to provide the opportunity for representatives to provide advice on government actions that directly impact them. What's the problem? As TBB pointed out, it is not very different to the referendum proposal John Howard brought to the people. Everyone gets their chance to vote, use it as you wish.
The voice is about co-governance, not recognition. Recognition would be to amend the preamble to acknowledge indigenous history. Inserting a race based body and creating 2 classes of citizens is another thing entirely.
No, it is not. Read the words. This thread is about the "necessity of reparation of historic injustices", you either believe that there is a need for that or you don't. If you do, then recognition and the ability to have a voice is part of that process.
You can vote no, go for it. No need for the hysteria.
blackers wrote:waveman wrote:blackers wrote:The referendum question relates to formal, constitutional recognition of the original inhabitants and the explicit requirement that the government of the day needs to provide the opportunity for representatives to provide advice on government actions that directly impact them. What's the problem? As TBB pointed out, it is not very different to the referendum proposal John Howard brought to the people. Everyone gets their chance to vote, use it as you wish.
The voice is about co-governance, not recognition. Recognition would be to amend the preamble to acknowledge indigenous history. Inserting a race based body and creating 2 classes of citizens is another thing entirely.
No, it is not. Read the words. This thread is about the "necessity of reparation of historic injustices", you either believe that there is a need for that or you don't. If you do, then recognition and the ability to have a voice is part of that process.
You can vote no, go for it. No need for the hysteria.
You’re confusing hysteria with facts. Most concerning is the number of people who cannot comprehend the implications of the proposed amendments.
waveman wrote:blackers wrote:waveman wrote:blackers wrote:The referendum question relates to formal, constitutional recognition of the original inhabitants and the explicit requirement that the government of the day needs to provide the opportunity for representatives to provide advice on government actions that directly impact them. What's the problem? As TBB pointed out, it is not very different to the referendum proposal John Howard brought to the people. Everyone gets their chance to vote, use it as you wish.
The voice is about co-governance, not recognition. Recognition would be to amend the preamble to acknowledge indigenous history. Inserting a race based body and creating 2 classes of citizens is another thing entirely.
No, it is not. Read the words. This thread is about the "necessity of reparation of historic injustices", you either believe that there is a need for that or you don't. If you do, then recognition and the ability to have a voice is part of that process.
You can vote no, go for it. No need for the hysteria.You’re confusing hysteria with facts. Most concerning is the number of people who cannot comprehend the implications of the proposed amendments.
Such as?
waveman wrote:blackers wrote:The referendum question relates to formal, constitutional recognition of the original inhabitants and the explicit requirement that the government of the day needs to provide the opportunity for representatives to provide advice on government actions that directly impact them. What's the problem? As TBB pointed out, it is not very different to the referendum proposal John Howard brought to the people. Everyone gets their chance to vote, use it as you wish.
The voice is about co-governance, not recognition. Recognition would be to amend the preamble to acknowledge indigenous history. Inserting a race based body and creating 2 classes of citizens is another thing entirely.
100%, what really shits me, is how people try to take some moral high ground on this, when they are voting for a segregation of representation and voices, it's so upside down and back to front.
Regarding implication's ive read many different things from various media articles, I honestly i dont totally understand or know what to believe and i doubt anyone really does know.
In regard to indigenous people, it won't make one bit of difference, those who are successful will continue to be successful those that are stuck in a cycle of poverty and violence etc will still be unless they themselves make change.
The big difference is more who gets to control things and $$$$, you can guarantee one thing for sure the ones behind the voice will ensure they keep the $$$ coming in to them or flow it onto those they are aligned with, the industry is worth literally billions.
Like most things all about money and politics.
"they are voting for a segregation of representation and voices,"
Yeah we don't want to threaten the LNP's near-monopoly on that.
To "govern" in Australia you have to win a majority of seats in the House of Representatives. The Voice will provide advice and make submissions that the Government of the day can accept, modify or reject.
Many groups provide advice and make submissions to the Government.
But, yeah, "co-governance", "segregation". Pfttt
Uni assignment i did a few years ago. This is my take on things. I'm sure this will ruffle many feathers. I hope so.
Love Blue Diamond x
The Necessity of Reparation for Historic Injustices
Introduction – Compensatory Justice
Disparities between the standards of living of humans on this planet have long been a part of our history on this planet. From the wealthy nations of the West to the developing and undeveloped nations on this globe, the diversity in the quality of life when viewed from a moral standpoint are without a doubt grossly unfair.
In this paper I will look at why historic injustices do require some form of reparation. I take a strong stance that we are more obliged to solve current injustices than to provide reparation for every act of injustice in the past. In doing this I will first investigate the historic injustice of the Aboriginal people of Australia and I will look at the argument that they are entitled to some form of reparation and why.
I will incoroporate some interesting views from Jeremy Waldron, Robert Nozick and others which will help me slowly build to my conclusion that reparation should be in the form of Non Indigenous Australians surrendering some of our priveleges as a form of reparation.
Historic Injustices to Indigenous Australians:
Australia the continent was well inhabited for many years long before white settlement. It is commonly known that in 1788 Australia was colonised as a country under the rule of the British Empire, with total contempt for the fact that it was already inhabited by a native indigenous race of people.
The way the original inhabitants have been treated, including forced assimilation, execution, stolen families and not even allowed to be recognised as citizens for a large part of white Australia’s history are also well known facts. (Poole, 1999,pp114-142)
There exists now a situation where there is a large divide between Aboriginal and non Aboriginal Australian’s that can be traced back to the moment Australia was invaded by English settlers and the brutal and unfair treatment that has followed.
So at this point now, in 2013 what is the just and fair way to make amends for past actions?
I would argue that a moderate to large amount of reparation is overdue for this nation of people, the Aboriginal people. But there are many challenges to this view point especially that of how much reparation, and what sort of compensation.
Past injustices or present suffering?
One of the questions raised in an issue like this is whether it is better to provide compensation or reparation for past deeds, which have already been done in a previous generation and cannot be changed, or whether it is better to now provide assistance to those who are suffering in their current situations and consider that as a form of moral duty.
To understand this we need to delve a little deeper into this issue and hear some differing viewpoints.
Firstly we need to understand what the best way to provide reparation. How do we judge what is the best way of giving back and how much? Jeremy Waldron states “The historic record has a fragility that consists, …in the sheer contingency of what happened in the past” (Waldron,1992,p5 )
This is saying that we can’t trace every single injustice back to the original act therefore reparation for every act would be almost impossible because it would ultimately be guess work.
In this statement he has an objection from Robert Nozick who believes it is in fact possible to address this problem by “changing the present so that it resembles how the past would have looked had the injustice not taken place” (McKenzie, 2013)
This would be a way to ultimately provide maximum reparation, but is it the correct approach? I believe this is a fairly radical approach, although it does have some merits in the fact it would be working in a positive way for indigenous people, I don’t think it is entirely the right way to deal with these issues but it is on the right track.
Waldron argues that it is based on too many unknowns. “The status of counterfactual reasoning about the exercising of human reasoning of human freedom is unclear”(Waldron 1993,p10)
Which leaves the question somewhat open about the sort of reparation that is required, but provides one clear answer to the key question. Both agree that yes, reparation to some extent is required. But how much and in what form?
Another philosopher who leans more towards Waldron’s views is Kymlicka. He is somewhat more straightforward in his assessment that property rights in particular for Aboriginals would create “massive unfairness” and also he maintains the argument “Aboriginal rights must be grounded in concerns about equality and contemporary disadvantage. (McKenzie, 2013) I agree with both these views but I don’t think they provide any active solutions.
The Solution?
So if its not handing back all of Australia’s land to the original inhabitants that is the most appropriate way to deal with past injustices, then what is?
I look at the current country I grew up in, as a white Australian. I ask myself why I never had Aboriginal friends growing up, no understanding of Aboriginal culture and why my basic understanding of Indigenous Australians is mostly 200 years old. I look at our flag, a symbol of a nation that stole a country from its original inhabitants, with no recognition of the Indigenous people at all on it. I see that Australia considered Indigenous people as less than people until only 40 years ago and I see the way that Indigenous Australians live a completely separate life to the way of life I know as an Australian. I see that the only indigenous politician I am aware of is a former Olympian and it is because of this fact of her sporting status that I know this. I see no collective power or representation of Indigenous Australians and I see non Indigenous Australians,( a culture built on a history of stealing a land and mistreating its people) still taking, taking as much out of this land as they can, with little to no regard of sharing or giving to the original inhabitants. I see a government that says lots of words about ‘closing the gap’ and bringing the living standards of non- indigenous and indigenous Australians closer together, but apart from nice words, there is no conviction, no follow through, just assimilation , and all that still remains are injustices.
As stated by Sparrow, “Continuity gives rise to responsibility on part of present generations of Australians for our history”.(McKenzie,2013). Although deeds happened in the past beyond our control, what we do now to either ignore, or rectify these issues will reflect on us in history. So if we choose to do nothing, we are contributing to the history of the mistreatment of non- indigenous Australians. And this is simply unacceptable in my opinion.
Conclusion
So what is fair? I believe that the way forward is a surrendering of some of our privileges as non- indigenous Australians. The simple fact is it was morally wrong without a doubt what has happened in the past. And it is also morally wrong without a doubt to ignore these facts and not offer some form of reparation in the present. But how much?
I think that going back to Robert Nozick’s argument is a start. I think Nozick is wrong to make the present resemble the past in every aspect. But I do think that it would be reasonable to restore some aspects of the way things should be. The things that happened in the past were out of our control and we can’t go back to changing the way things were. But we could change the way things are.
For some examples. Why not give at least 50% of political power to indigenous people? It surely would be a fair thing to do considering this is their country. Media control. 50 percent. Industry. Realestate. The list goes on. Why do we not acknowledge the indigenous people on our flag, or better still use their flag? Why is Australia still a part of the Commonwealth when it serves little purpose to any of us and serves as a constant reminder to Indigenous Australians that they are still controlled by the original invaders. These to me are fairly simple reparations that would have minimal impact on Australia as a whole. Perhaps, it would alter the way we live but I think it is our responsibility, morally to forfeit some of our privileges for the greater good. Basically a little bit goes a long way.
In closing, it is a fact that a huge injustice occurred to the Indigenous population and suffering continues to this day. There is no easy solution to such a burden of pain. I believe the only solutions are for the non- Indigenous population to take responsibility and sacrifice our own way of life to bring about an overall equality. Sacrifice is not an easy word. But it all comes down to right and wrong. We are in a position to give, in this current generation. What are we so scared to lose, that was never ours in the first place??
Bibliography
McKenzie,C.”Prof” (2013), Lecture, Historic Injustices and Indigenous Rights, Macquarie University
Poole, R. (1999). Nation and Identity.Routledge, London, pp.114-142
Waldron,J. (1992). ‘Superseding Historic Injustice’. Ethics, 103 (1), 4-28
References
Poole, R. (1999). Nation and Identity.Routledge, London, pp.114-142
Waldron,J. (1992). ‘Superseding Historic Injustice’. Ethics, 103 (1), 4-28