Indigenous Voice to Parliament

[think positive]

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

Wooohoooo

[think positive]

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.

truth!

[What'sinaname]

Exactly right. Anyone saying this will reflect badly on an international stage has a massively overstated opinion of Australia. Very few people actually give a shit about the Land Down Under.

[pietillidie]

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.

Let me remind you:

They confirmed to me that the voice would predominantly benefit the political and social elite first and foremost.

As explained, that's a non-sequitur. One of my mates has lived in communities for decades and adopted two abandoned children when he already had kids of his own. He has written major papers documenting his work and experience. The nonsense he deals with drives him batty, as do fly-by-night narcissists and tokenists. Has done for decades, long before this. But your counter-imaginary view is every bit annoying, because it gives people like him two groups of clueless big mouths to deal with.

Anyone who thinks that it will be the beginning of change to rural communities is delusional and is living in a fairy world.

Zero evidence and reasoning, just big mouthing. Anyone can assume an intractable problem today will still be intractable tomorrow. That's tautology, not insight.

Dodgy self serving “experts” who will fleece the system as they always have before.

Do you think anyone would pay you 50 cents for that insight, Captain Obvious? The rest of us know the world at large, including every single organisational context known to humanity, has those people. Like gravity, that's assumed. People are paid to find solutions assuming gravity, not assuming it away.

Until you can tell us if the average rate of self-servers or waste is greater than in any other context, this claim is meaningless tough talk. You have zero data, just mentalisations and media cliche. It's exactly the same error as those who claim that governments are more wasteful than businesses. Yet, we're knee-deep in grifting businesses and grifting business contracts. The experience and data shows there's really not that much difference between them.

All you've actually said so far is 'intractable problem is intractable'.

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.

Like the work my mate does. Go on, tell us what serious work looks like and propose your plan. You can't even be be bothered gracing us with an alternative. Why? Because in the irony of all ironies, you're the one who can't be bothered. What makes you less lazy here?

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....

Again, par for the course in any and all areas. Humans are selfish; welcome to our world. Yet here you are, offering strong views on a subject upon which you have little experience, have done little research, have no data, and are a hundredth as qualified as actual specialists in the field. Are you sure that's not you, Elon?

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.

Compared to what? More unsuccessful than what? More costly than what? There's nothing to compare the challenges facing first peoples except those facing first peoples elsewhere on the planet. Have you looked up how they're faring? Have you seen cracking success rates with any tiny generational underclass anywhere, ever?

You'll hear the odd story, and see the odd successful programme, and often in cultures very different to Australia. But that's about it. So, again you're talking nonsense.

Not to mention we spend billions on all kinds of complex challenges that we haven'tcracked yet. Environmental decline. Mental health conditions. Addiction. No one even knows what good education might even look like anymore. These kinds of areas are easy pickings for big mouths of all kinds who have nothing more to offer than the unsupported fantastical narcissistic assumption that they can do everything better.

And yet, somehow, they would never in a million years live in a country that doesn't spend that kind of money because those places are always far, far worse, if not complete shiteholes. So maybe that is the achievement itself when it comes to intractable problems.

The assumption that something extraordinarily complex should be easy to measure let alone fix is facepalm dumb. What happens if you withdraw the funding? Who else is there to administer it who's more trustworthy? What if small local gains and alleviation are the best achievement there is? What if the dumb luck of trying and failing, repeatedly, including this bumbling effort, is the best handle we have?

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.

Go and get some of the qualitative research written by people who live and work in the field and you can read hundreds of such detailed accounts. Honestly, you seem very unaware of just how much is already well-known and painstakingly detailed. Even people in the field with tens of thousands of hours' experience wonder if what they're doing is beneficial, but in the end they settle for very small wins because some wins are better than no wins.

You and I clearly have different views on what constitutes “political elite”.

You've merely mentioned clichéd entities. You have no data on them, what they think, what they do and how they work. You've told us nothing about their levels of wealth. Nothing about their life experience. Nothing about how many of them there are. Nothing about their net contribution. Nothing. You don't have a 'class', you have a very vague entity in your mind's eye that could be anything from partly true to wrong enough to be entirely meaningless, misleading or irrelevant.

Basically, you're offering no more than the twats who annoy you. That's the current reactionary political environment in a nutshell.

[pietillidie]

I shall say no more. Carry on with the thread as you were.

[slangman]

^ for someone who likes to rant about data im quite surprised that you have offered nothing other your opinion with no data or facts other than your mates experience.

Again, just to rejig your memory and once again prove your lack of
comprehension, $4.4b has been spent across 80+ aboriginal run organisations. That IS data. Look it up because you’re making a fool of yourself by demanding that I provide data whilst ignoring the data that I did provide . To question its effectiveness in comparison to any other organisation is totally irrelevant and has zero to do with the debate regarding the voice to parliament as other organisations funded by government will not be directly benefiting from a voice in the constitution via a referendum.
Your whole rant was based around “and what/ compared to what” .That’s a high school level argument.

….and regarding the political elite FMD you want me to dig up the tax returns for Langton, Mayo, Goodes etc??
I don’t know how much they earn and I don’t know how that’s relevant. What I do know is that unlike most people they have access to high level government figures. If you don’t see that then that’s your ignorance at play and not mine.
To put it as simply as possible so that you hopefully can comprehend, the people that I consider the political elite are the ones that you see sitting next to the PM at press conferences and the like (some regularly) but strangely were never spotted in Alice Springs (as an example) or in any other troubled community. The ones who you never see out of Canberra, Melbourne or Sydney.

ATSIC
Jim Golden-Brown
Phil Egan (of Hawthorn racism report fame)
NATSIC
Debbie Dates
Richard Green (not the golfer)
Priscilla Atkins

This might keep you occupied for a while and maybe, just maybe, might explain my cynicism towards all the snouts in or near the trough.

Is there any other “data” you want me to provide so that you can dismantle it with nothing other than your opinion??

[think positive]

great post

[pietillidie]

^No it's not. Don't repeat Facebook-level rubbish to 'win', and try to co-opt others as you often do. Stand on your own feet. I clearly, very clearly, don't have an opinion except the following. To repeat what I've clearly stated:

1. The constitutional element is a realisation of Mabo and a correction of original illegalities under British law. The Brits made hundreds of treaties with all and sundry, but declared Australia terra nullius. It was wrong, Mabo ruled accordingly, and adding the recognition of first peoples in the constitution is merely updating an old error already ruled upon and recognised.

That's a no-brainer very easy.

2. That aside, a referendum for this kind for an extraordinarily complex problem is idiotic. Complex problems cannot be defined easily, and certainly not in advance of a vote once and for all. Even worse, referenda have very long lifespans, and mislead people into thinking a very complex and ongoing challenge has been dealt with.

3. The voice was always going to lose as there's nothing in it, in hand today. So, I'm not enamoured with it aither as an approach to a complex problem nor as a political process, but since the stupid referendum was announced I'm not going to kick first peoples in the guts publically yet again.

4. Now the referendum is set, we might as well have another crack. The idea of people having a greater say in their own fate is fine; we all know the devil is in the implementation. Anyway, the dumb decision to hold a referendum is done now, so we might as well see if generational change and sheer luck throws better outcomes up because no one, absolutely no one really knows how to make strides on this, so any new effort is at least a shot.

Again, I'd never in a million years have done it via a referendum because it will only shame first peoples when it loses and bolster violent scumbags, while putting off future action and scuppering the easy part, the constitutional correction.

5. No one on earth knows how to solve what is among the most complex and intractable challenges on the planet. If only idiots would stop trying to colonise Mars and put themselves to work on serious, painful, terribly sad problems instead by funding a long-term, bipartisan, well-meaning, learn-as-we-go-together, trial-and-error processes.

(Your passion for animal welfare and species loss is one such example of building a real area of knowledge. Your photography journey is proper, impressive expertise development. Your knowledge of the housing market and housing investment. No doubt many more things. This isn't in the same league of know-how for you, surely?).

So there it is, and it matches absolutely everything I've said. I always defer on this to people who know miles more than me, with serious experience and credentials, and serious responsibility and legal accountability, who are smart enough to doubt themselves and their work on these challenges every single day, unlike clueless, half-witted internet big mouths you wouldn't pay 50 cents an hour to hire for advice on this and most complex socio-economic problems.

Take Ukraine. I'm extremely cautious and defer to people with strong track records of responsible and balanced decision making and judgement calls, while looking for data because I don't in any way shape or form think any one person understands these things, and knowing full well even experienced and smart people can be biased, driven or batty. I'm still extremely uncomfortable given the deaths and risk of escalation, but can't yet see an alternative that aligns with the views, choices and rights of Ukraine and its neighbours.

That said, I actually know two absolute specialists in Aboriginal communities and welfare, and have known several more in my life, and they are never ever certain about things themselves, including their own work. It gets to them. They break down under its burden. They pick their way through and do their best, taking plenty of punches and wearing plenty of costs. And most definitely don't have strong opinions except in really obvious things they know back-to-front and inside-out. They also complain about dic£head$, but they've earned the right to complain.

(For the very same reason, I always support cops, because they do such a difficult, dangerous and emotionally tough job for the rest of us, and I know full well I couldn't in a million years do better, whatever flaws and problems the organisation has, and however many twats wear a badge).

So no, I don't have a strong view, except on big mouths who lack the responsibility, ethical care and self-awareness to shut up when something is beyond their knowledge, strengths, experience and aptitude. This appalling lack of caution creates two groups of twats which dominate everything: the original annoying twats, and those reacting to them, scuppering absolutely every opportunity to make gains on anything.

Note, I didn't say much on this thread for ages because I hadn't kept up with the whole thing. Then, in response to people running their mouths without commensurate knowledge, experience and caution, I started getting up to date and adding counter views. I'd much rather not have said anything, FWIW.

[slangman]

it will only shame first peoples when it loses and bolster violent scumbags,

Thats quite a claim!

Do you have data to prove that or is that just your opinion….AGAIN!!!

[stui magpie]

^

It's an opinion I tend to agree with FWIW.

It's really a pretty modest ask, recognition of First Nations Australians in the constitution and a guaranteed voice to Parliament. All a No vote is is a great big F U to the First Nations Peoples, regardless of the reasons for the vote.

That's an opinion. My mother is voting No, I'm not going to lecture on it (or anyone else) or try to change her mind, it is what it is, but that's how I do feel a No vote at the referendum will be perceived by our First Nations Peoples.

[Magpietothemax]

it will only shame first peoples when it loses and bolster violent scumbags,

Wrong. The vast majority of the indigenous population, those who live in grinding poverty, will have absolutely no say in the composition of the Voice. The Voice will be an unelected body of officially vetted wealthy, grasping upper middle class indigenous layers who will be profiting from lucrative government positions and contracts, as well as corporate contracts, at the expense of all the indigenous people living in squalor that they claim to represent.
The Voice was a concoction of the Abbottt, with the collaboration of Shorten, Noel Pearson and other handpicked members of the indigenous elite.
By the way Slangman, corruption is endemic in all upper middle class layers striving to accumulate wealth, regardless of race. However the real indigenous elite, the ones who stand to profit massively from the Voice, are: Noel Pearson, Marcia Langton, Tom Calma, Linda Burney, and likewise even Lidia Thorpe, whose differences are merely tactical, and represents a faction of the indigenous elite who would like an alternative mechanism to the Voice (treaties, such as in NZ) which would be far more financially lucrative for them. Warren Mundine likewise opposes the voice because he already has corporate deals signed up which might be affected by decisions of the Voice.

[David]

[Magpietothemax]

[pietillidie]

it will only shame first peoples when it loses and bolster violent scumbags,

Wrong. The vast majority of the indigenous population, those who live in grinding poverty, will have absolutely no say in the composition of the Voice.

No, it's not "wrong", not least because it hasn't happened yet. It might end up wrong, but good judgement is about minimising bad outcomes as best you can in advance, even if all and every risk, or no risks, are realised (risk management 101).

And you can most certainly have both things at once, i.e., something below par being voted down can in one sense be no real loss, yet it can still be very shaming, particularly in this case because the government has put it on such a prominent, symbolic pedestal through a dim-witted referendum process.

Again, it's bizarre I even need to point this out as it's a pretty common life scenario we've all seen dozens of times. And this instance is even more prone to causing shame because a symbolic process is being used by many expressly for the purposes of shaming and making a point.

Moreover, the more people are compelled to say they don't care anyhow, the more you half suspect they're just bracing for the shame. Again, very universal human psychology. It doesn't always happen, but you've seen it enough to know to pursue a process that guards against it.

Moreover, sometimes kick and hope is all you have, especially because things do sometimes change despite ourselves, with forces like generational shift often impinging upon things unexpectedly.

It takes some shortfall of emotional intelligence, aptitude and experience not to be wary of these things when designing them.

[think positive]