Sam Newman at it again!

[LP]

There are no morals, ethics etc when it comes to making a dollar these days out of any issue or situation with some people.

Both sides claim the high moral ground, neither has it, having swung so far left and right that they meet back in the middle!

On this issue many have been left feeling that change is needed, but not the change that is being offered.

[ElwoodBlues1]

Both sides claim the high moral ground, neither has it, having swung so far left and right that they meet back in the middle!

On this issue many have been left feeling that change is needed, but not the change that is being offered.

I would have legislated it through Parliament...tested how it works for a couple of years in that format, sorted out any problems and then done the Referendum to make the Constitutional changes if appropriate.

[PaulP]

My wife worked in Indigenous employment for over 10 years. She had plenty of contact with First Nations people, and has been involved in many Welcome To Country / Acknowledgment of Country ceremonies. It's not a cynical, money making, empty gesture to many Indigenous people.

First Nations people are damned if they do and damned if they don't. They are the poorest group in Australia, get routinely slagged off for having no entrepreneurial drive, for demanding handouts rather than working for a living, then when they expect a fee for something like this, they are criticised yet again.

Poor form.

[LP]

I would have legislated it through Parliament...tested how it works for a couple of years in that format, sorted out any problems and then done the Referendum to make the Constitutional changes if appropriate.

Can I ask [member=57]ElwoodBlues1[/member], what do you think "it" is?

Many are left wondering what "it" is, the pro-Voice is loud if not louder than the naysayers, that's almost come across as badgering the voters. It feels like an accusation, if you vote no you are racist.

But many still do not know what "it" looks like other than an idea, and that vagueness has played into the naysayers hands!

Maybe legislation is what Albanese wants, and that could explain why he has been so vague.

[LP]

My wife worked in Indigenous employment for over 10 years. She had plenty of contact with First Nations people, and has been involved in many Welcome To Country / Acknowledgment of Country ceremonies. It's not a cynical, money making, empty gesture to many Indigenous people.

First Nations people are damned if they do and damned if they don't. They are the poorest group in Australia, get routinely slagged off for having no entrepreneurial drive, for demanding handouts rather than working for a living, then when they expect a fee for something like this, they are criticised yet again.

Poor form.

Yet [member=64]PaulP[/member] , the fundamental assertion remains valid even if Newman has hijacked the message in the context of the vote, that is the question should politics and religion be kept out of sport?

Many go to the footy to escape the barrage of the day to day, not be subjected to more of it!

Let's flip this on it's head, I'm not sure who here are religious or not, but would they be happy for the Sunday sermon to become a paid political statement? I suspect not!

[PaulP]

Yet [member=64]PaulP[/member] , the fundamental assertion remains valid even if Newman has hijacked the message in the context of the vote, that is the question should politics and religion be kept out of sport?

Many go to the footy to escape the barrage of the day to day, not be subjected to more of it!

Let's flip this on it's head, I'm not sure who here are religious or not, but would they be happy for the Sunday sermon to become a paid political statement? I suspect not!

You've pivoted away from the question of financial compensation to another set of questions.

[LP]

You've pivoted away from the question of financial compensation to another set of questions.

We've been discussing both issues not one or the other, it's not really tenable to have a separate thread for each and as uncomfortable as that may be many can't separate them. Many see politicise and monetise as method and motive.

I think it's a fair assertion the concept of "Welcome to Country" has been both politicised and monetised, and the frequency of the event has caused it to be greatly devalued in the eyes of some.

As much as it has influenced modern Australia and VFL/AFL and continues to do so, we don't have a Catafalque ceremony every pre-game, that would be clearly too much, I don't think that perspective is radical or excessive and I'd assert it's the rarity and exclusivity of the occasion that gives it special meaning, and I doubt the RSL charge to conduct it.

[PaulP]

We've been discussing both issues not one or the other, it's not really tenable to have a separate thread for each and as uncomfortable as that may be many can't separate them. Many see politicise and monetise as method and motive.

I think it's a fair assertion the concept of "Welcome to Country" has been both politicised and monetised, and the frequency of the event has caused it to be greatly devalued in the eyes of some.

As much as it has influenced modern Australia and VFL/AFL and continues to do so, we don't have a Catafalque ceremony every pre-game, that would be clearly too much, I don't think that perspective is radical or excessive and I'd assert it's the rarity and exclusivity of the occasion that gives it special meaning, and I doubt the RSL charge to conduct it.

The AFL, like any organisation, needs to prioritise what gets attention and what doesn't, how much attention is given etc. There are a few reasons why First Nations people get attention : one is their obvious contribution to the game, and the other is equally obvious power asymmetries that have historically and still to this day adversely affect many of our First Nations brothers and sisters. It does not, has not, and will not stop at simply "being seen" to do the right thing. That may well be the starting point, but there are additional layers and a flow on effect that can make a difference. The worst you can say is that such ceremonies don't make a difference, but they certainly don't hinder the cause, and they must be allowed to take root and see if they can be an agent for positive change.

Your comparison to a prayer or sermon earlier is not valid. Welcome to Ceremony requires us to acknowledge past injustices, be a little decent and respectful, and give a damn for someone outside our own tribe. Evidently a tough ask for many.

I've never heard anyone complain about the endless and thoroughly boring speeches, thanking of sponsors (in itself a heavily political act) etc. that accompany some games like the Grand Final, yet any hint of a Welcome To Country or similar, and all hell breaks loose.

[ElwoodBlues1]

Can I ask [member=57]ElwoodBlues1[/member], what do you think "it" is?

Many are left wondering what "it" is, the pro-Voice is loud if not louder than the naysayers, that's almost come across as badgering the voters. It feels like an accusation, if you vote no you are racist.

But many still do not know what "it" looks like other than an idea, and that vagueness has played into the naysayers hands!

Maybe legislation is what Albanese wants, and that could explain why he has been so vague.

LP.."It" would be recommendations from a panel of first nations representatives on policies that affect first nations folk.
The mechanics of how it works, how the panel is selected, what powers they have I don't know. The Government would still have over riding authority but I can see the Voice panel getting frustrated if recommendations are constantly over ruled so all the processes to make it operate and satisfy what ever terms of reference it has need to be sorted and tested and that's why I would have trialled it first by legislation and not the referendum.

[Lods]

LP.."It" would be recommendations from a panel of first nations representatives on policies that affect first nations folk.
The mechanics of how it works, how the panel is selected, what powers they have I don't know. The Government would still have over riding authority but I can see the Voice panel getting frustrated if recommendations are constantly over ruled so all the processes to make it operate and satisfy what ever terms of reference it has need to be sorted and tested and that's why I would have trialled it first by legislation and not the referendum.

Does the referendum question and the proposed wording still not put all the power for the composition on the Parliament.

https://voice.gov.au/resources/fact-shee...-amendment

If approved at the referendum, the following words would be added to the Constitution:

Chapter IX Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples

129 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice

In recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia:

i) there shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice;
ii) the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice may make representations to the Parliament and the Executive Government of the Commonwealth on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples;
iii) the Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws with respect to matters relating to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, including its composition, functions, powers and procedures.