The Voice

[Lods]

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.

[LP]

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!

[RiverRat]

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

Too true

[Gointocarlton]

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

[crashlander]

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.

[tonyo]

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.

[DJC]

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. 

[LP]

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!

[DJC]

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.

[Lods]

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.