Indigenous Voice Yes or No? | PUNT ROAD END | Richmond Tigers Forum
  • IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.

Indigenous Voice Yes or No?

How will you vote in referendum?

  • Yes

    Votes: 88 54.0%
  • No

    Votes: 30 18.4%
  • Probably yes

    Votes: 16 9.8%
  • Probably no

    Votes: 15 9.2%
  • Dont know

    Votes: 14 8.6%

  • Total voters
    163
  • Poll closed .
Closing Aboriginal communities is IMO a bad idea, and moving Aboriginal people to regional centres has been tried before and was disastrous, but that is different to the stolen generation.
Who decided were some of these camps get situated.?

I seen a documentary about mining in Australia about 5 years or more ,and 2 indigenous communities or camps where doing mining on their own ,there communities where self funded and had very little to any government funding.
How it come about for 1 community ,was a large mining company got a lease to mine part of their land,the community got royalties ,plus they asked if a percentage of the community could work on the mine,after a while of working 3 of the younger indigenous workers went and got business management diploma's ,these where all funded by the mining company ,and the 3 got positions learning how to manage a mining operations .
A couple of year's later the community started there own successful mining operations,2 of the young indigenous who completed the business course where female and they are the bosses of the operation.

One of the females said everything changed for the whole community ,she said there was little to no violence anymore ,everyone had some sort of paid employment .

Now of course that's not going to work for most of these communities ,but if a idea by Richard Pratt many year's ago was to see fruition ,it would change so many lives and provide large amounts of employment ,and businesses .

He proposed they should build a dam in the north of the NT/ and trap the monsoon rain,and pipe it down to the Alice and outlying area's ,and create a food bowl,the climate is perfect for growing vegetables and fruit etc .
Of course the initial cost would be huge ,but the benefits in the future could be huge,we would no longer have to import any fruit/vegetables etc from overseas ,in fact we export to northern countries who are going into there winter
Employment could run into thousands ,and there would be so many opportunities to start businesses .,because everyone needs to eat .
 
Closing Aboriginal communities is IMO a bad idea, and moving Aboriginal people to regional centres has been tried before and was disastrous, but that is different to the stolen generation.

Yes it is different, but also pretty *smile* terrible I would say. Breaking up communities and resettling people in different parts of the state will totally destroy any traditional culture and kinship relations.

Gotta say, I find the right's new found concerns over indigenous poverty, drug issues, child abuse and so on pretty cynical. Let's call it out for what it is - a smokescreen to denigrate the Voice proposal. Once the referendum is over they'll go back to their status quo - complete indifference to the plight of indigenous people and calls to reduce government funding in indigenous communities. And that's it. That's their agenda.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
Yes it is different, but also pretty *smile* terrible I would say. Breaking up communities and resettling people in different parts of the state will totally destroy any traditional culture and kinship relations.

Gotta say, I find the right's new found concerns over indigenous poverty, drug issues, child abuse and so on pretty cynical. Let's call it out for what it is - a smokescreen to denigrate the Voice proposal. Once the referendum is over they'll go back to their status quo - complete indifference to the plight of indigenous people and calls to reduce government funding in indigenous communities. And that's it. That's their agenda.
None of your posts on this subject provide any type of solution ,they are negative and Politically driven .
The stolen Generation stopped in the 1970''s 50 year's ago ,l think Australia has evolved a lot in 50 years .
Question to you Ant man would you live in these community camps ,and bring your children up there(if you have any) ,you also have no employment .

Anyway here's a sample of the coalitions smokescreen as you put it,dated 2016.

 
Again and throughout this, it seems you believe the answer here is to tell the indigenous people how and where they should live. This way of thinking has failed our indigenous people since Capt Philip landed in Australia. Putting in similar but slightly modified policies that have failed so miserably in the past is a recipe for disaster and a waste of time for everyone.

The Stolen Generation policy may have stopped in the 70s, but the devastating effects of that policy are still with us today. It's still raw. Many are still today trying to repair what the policy did to their families and communities. You probably need another generation or two before the aftereffects of the policy no longer has a strong influence in their day to day lives, but even then, they'll never forget, we should never forget, and we should never even think of anything like that again.

The Voice is about giving the indigenous people a much bigger say in things that directly impact them.

They need a stronger Voice that can't be removed on a whim by an elected government. All the rest of Australia needs to do is listen to that Voice.

What is so wrong or scary with that concept for a loud, but thankfully shrinking segment of the Australian Population?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 users
Again and throughout this, it seems you believe the answer here is to tell the indigenous people how and where they should live. This way of thinking has failed our indigenous people since Capt Philip landed in Australia. Putting in similar but slightly modified policies that have failed so miserably in the past is a recipe for disaster and a waste of time for everyone.

The Stolen Generation policy may have stopped in the 70s, but the devastating effects of that policy are still with us today. It's still raw. Many are still today trying to repair what the policy did to their families and communities. You probably need another generation or two before the aftereffects of the policy no longer has a strong influence in their day to day lives, but even then, they'll never forget, we should never forget, and we should never even think of anything like that again.

The Voice is about giving the indigenous people a much bigger say in things that directly impact them.

They need a stronger Voice that can't be removed on a whim by an elected government. All the rest of Australia needs to do is listen to that Voice.

What is so wrong or scary with that concept for a loud, but thankfully shrinking segment of the Australian Population?
Mate my biggest concern is the children ,Adults can make up their own mind ,you would hope though that Adults who want to escape there environment or want to change have options .
CHILD ABUSE SHOULD NOT BE ACCEPTED IN ANY SOCIETY ,governments of all political parties have had numerous inquiries in indigenous problems for year's ,the usual solution is throw money into a certain area .

I don't know how anyone can say yes to the Voice without getting the final details of what it will contain.
I want to see how the Voice is going to tackle the problems ,and the proposed outcomes .
Governments for year's know what the problems are ,but don't know how to tackle them ,are indigenous leaders going to be able to make the hard decisions without reprisal .
Are they going to be able to stop child abuse ,reduce domestic violence,and get employment .
 
As I pointed out earlier in this thread, the Voice is agreeing to build the restaurant. Once that is agreed, the details, like the menu, will start to be decided.

Claiming you need details before you can vote for it shows that you don't understand what the constitution is. Or you're parroting News Corp columnists, probably the same ones that called Dan a criminal with no evidence or substance.

There's little detail in the constitution. The constitution isn't the place for detail. The Voice is about a change to the constitution.

It's really very simple to understand for anyone with an open mind.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
As I pointed out earlier in this thread, the Voice is agreeing to build the restaurant. Once that is agreed, the details, like the menu, will start to be decided.

Claiming you need details before you can vote for it shows that you don't understand what the constitution is. Or you're parroting News Corp columnists, probably the same ones that called Dan a criminal with no evidence or substance.

There's little detail in the constitution. The constitution isn't the place for detail. The Voice is about a change to the constitution.

It's really very simple to understand for anyone with an open mind.
Like l said l want to see the final details ,it's no good having the voice in the constitution without knowing how it will operate,and whats involved once it is done .
I don't see a problem with having these discussions now .
 
Like l said l want to see the final details ,it's no good having the voice in the constitution without knowing how it will operate,and whats involved once it is done .
I don't see a problem with having these discussions now .

It will be a body of indigenous leaders that give recommendations to the government of the day in matters that directly relate to Indigenous people. The government of the day are under no legal obligation to follow or take those recommendations into account.

The enshrining of that body into the constitution, so it can't be removed by any successive government, is what this referendum is basically about.

That's it. There's not much more than that.

Harping on about "detail" is a Dutton wedge designed to create FUD around the vote in the hope it fails, without Dutton ever having to say he's against it. The News Corp shrills are parroting that wedge, and here we are now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
Harping on about "detail" is a Dutton wedge designed to create FUD around the vote in the hope it fails, without Dutton ever having to say he's against it. The News Corp shrills are parroting that wedge, and here we are now.

I reckon Albo is gonna jam this wedge firmly up duttons arse.
 
It will be a body of indigenous leaders that give recommendations to the government of the day in matters that directly relate to Indigenous people. The government of the day are under no legal obligation to follow or take those recommendations into account.

The enshrining of that body into the constitution, so it can't be removed by any successive government, is what this referendum is basically about.

That's it. There's not much more than that.

Harping on about "detail" is a Dutton wedge designed to create FUD around the vote in the hope it fails, without Dutton ever having to say he's against it. The News Corp shrills are parroting that wedge, and here we are now.
Baloo you are putting the cart before the horse & that means your going nowhere.
 
It will be a body of indigenous leaders that give recommendations to the government of the day in matters that directly relate to Indigenous people. The government of the day are under no legal obligation to follow or take those recommendations into account.

The enshrining of that body into the constitution, so it can't be removed by any successive government, is what this referendum is basically about.

That's it. There's not much more than that.

Harping on about "detail" is a Dutton wedge designed to create FUD around the vote in the hope it fails, without Dutton ever having to say he's against it. The News Corp shrills are parroting that wedge, and here we are now.
You go on about news corp,but the reporters are entitled to their opinions right or wrong,same as any other news network .
Im pretty sure the Nationals where the first to say they don't support it YET.

Albo has just come out with it, and expects everyone to agree with it ,if parties have questions over the Voice ,he accuses them of causing division.
Maybe Albo is in the wrong line of work,or doesn't understand when making decisions ,you are going to get questions..
 
I don't know how anyone can say yes to the Voice without getting the final details of what it will contain.
I want to see how the Voice is going to tackle the problems ,and the proposed outcomes .
Governments for year's know what the problems are ,but don't know how to tackle them ,are indigenous leaders going to be able to make the hard decisions without reprisal .
Are they going to be able to stop child abuse ,reduce domestic violence,and get employment .
This detail issue is a furphy, we know that the Voice is an advisory group to government with no powers other than that role. It cannot make policy or enact policy . All of that is in the Uluru statement or has been explained over and over again

My view is the opposite to yours in relation to voting for the Voice. We know what we have now is not working, we know that through the very extensive consultation that occurred before the issues of the Uluru statement that this is what the indigenous population want as a way of ensuring they have the involvement they want in coming up with solutions for the plethora of issues the indigenous population has.

When the alternative is to do nothing and stay with something that isn't working and where we know that the Voice is not a law or policy making body, nor a body that will undertake enacting policy I cannot see how anyone who cares about the plight of our indigenous population (including children subject to neglect and abuse) can do anything else but support it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 7 users
This detail issue is a furphy, we know that the Voice is an advisory group to government with no powers other than that role. It cannot make policy or enact policy . All of that is in the Uluru statement or has been explained over and over again

My view is the opposite to yours in relation to voting for the Voice. We know what we have now is not working, we know that through the very extensive consultation that occurred before the issues of the Uluru statement that this is what the indigenous population want as a way of ensuring they have the involvement they want in coming up with solutions for the plethora of issues the indigenous population has.

When the alternative is to do nothing and stay with something that isn't working and where we know that the Voice is not a law or policy making body, nor a body that will undertake enacting policy I cannot see how anyone who cares about the plight of our indigenous population (including children subject to neglect and abuse) can do anything else but support it.
The biggest issue as to why Governments have failed ,is the indigenous people themselves ,they don't accept that children that are abused should be removed ,and the one's that do speak out are targets for reprisal ,they have to live in these communities ,and then the children are eventually brought back into these communities,with other abusers living there.
Unless some of these communities as a whole accept that child abuse/domestic violence is not accepted and has consequences ,nothing will change.
These community camps have to start being realistic ,what is the future of living in them,are they able to produce any businesses and create employment ,or are they a open fenced prison that they can't get out of.


At the moment l think people see the voice as the indigenous savior in the troubled areas ,but the reality is, unless the communities want to change ,nothing will voice or no voice .

I don't need to vote yes for the voice to view my opinions on child abuse ,it's unacceptable in any society, as simple as that .
 
You go on about news corp,but the reporters are entitled to their opinions right or wrong,same as any other news network .
Im pretty sure the Nationals where the first to say they don't support it YET.

Albo has just come out with it, and expects everyone to agree with it ,if parties have questions over the Voice ,he accuses them of causing division.
Maybe Albo is in the wrong line of work,or doesn't understand when making decisions ,you are going to get questions..

er, odd post. News Corp isn't a political party so not sure why you are comparing them to the Nationals. News organisations shouldn't report opinion as News, but you seem to think that's ok.

The Uluru Statement has been out for a few years now. Albo is just taking that to a referendum. If you or Dutton or anyone thinks it's only just come out, then that pretty much proves you've all been ignoring indigenous issues until now. Scroll back and you'll see the link to the Uluru Statement FAQ. Have a read of it and then come back if you think there are things still missing or unknown.

The "no detail" wedge is just that, a wedge. The detail is their for anyone that wants to read it.
 
As I pointed out earlier in this thread, the Voice is agreeing to build the restaurant. Once that is agreed, the details, like the menu, will start to be decided.

Claiming you need details before you can vote for it shows that you don't understand what the constitution is. Or you're parroting News Corp columnists, probably the same ones that called Dan a criminal with no evidence or substance.

There's little detail in the constitution. The constitution isn't the place for detail. The Voice is about a change to the constitution.

It's really very simple to understand for anyone with an open mind.
Baloo the restaurant is already built. Linda Burney dined there. Chefs special was Tripe which she had & she does not recommend it as it gave her the *smile*.
 
Baloo the restaurant is already built. Linda Burney dined there. Chefs special was Tripe which she had & she does not recommend it as it gave her the *smile*.
I didn't think it was possible, but you come across even more stupid and racist with every post you make on this thread.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
er, odd post. News Corp isn't a political party so not sure why you are comparing them to the Nationals. News organisations shouldn't report opinion as News, but you seem to think that's ok.

The Uluru Statement has been out for a few years now. Albo is just taking that to a referendum. If you or Dutton or anyone thinks it's only just come out, then that pretty much proves you've all been ignoring indigenous issues until now. Scroll back and you'll see the link to the Uluru Statement FAQ. Have a read of it and then come back if you think there are things still missing or unknown.

The "no detail" wedge is just that, a wedge. The detail is their for anyone that wants to read it.
From your post....Harping on about "detail" is a Dutton wedge designed to create FUD around the vote in the hope it fails, without Dutton ever having to say he's against it. The News Corp shrills are parroting that wedge, and here we are now....
From mine...
You go on about news corp,but the reporters are entitled to their opinions right or wrong,same as any other news network .
Im pretty sure the Nationals where the first to say they don't support it YET....


What are the negatives of the Uluru Statement from the heart?
Image result


The Uluru Statement from the Heart underlines this disadvantage: “Proportionally, we are the most incarcerated people on the planet. We are not an innately criminal people. Our children are aliened from their families at unprecedented rates. This cannot be because we have no love for them

I see two sides to this,yes they are right,and the other side is they seem to fail to comprehend that their are consequences to their actions.
If you do a crime,and depending on how serious it is,you will do the time,that is for everyone in the general public .

Children are being alienated because of neglect ,and abuse again that is not just.happening to the indigenous.
They say they love their children ,well for some of those children they are scarred for life,that''s real love.

The stats of reported child sexual abuse ,is indigenous are 3-4 times higher than the general population.
The other stats that staggered me,which is for the whole population, 96percent of all reported child abuse is caused by a family member or someone they know..
 
Last edited: