Frank wrote on Dec 4^th, 2022 at 11:11am:


You are ignoring socio-economic realities. You have to get rid of societal/family dysfunction, and poor health outcomes first, to create favorable conditions for good educational outcomes.

That's why a Job Guarantee must include non-market- oriented jobs in the beginning, such as those offered in the CDEP...before it was cancelled by CIS market  ideologues.

Frank wrote on Dec 4^th, 2022 at 11:48am:


No; rather any work which the community considers useful/beneficial, eg caring for people, infrastructure and environment.   

Frank wrote on Dec 4^th, 2022 at 5:00pm:


because they are demoralized and dysfunctional, after 200 years of generational poverty and exclusion

Quote:


It's difficult for anyone forced to live on the below- poverty dole (in our neoliberal NAIRU economy) to "care", especially those subject to generational (historical) trauma, poverty and exclusion.   

Quote:


That's the money-based economy for you....in competitive neoliberal markets, no less.

There was no systemic 'poverty' or exclusion, in a h-g resource-based economy, only occasional community-wide shortages.

Indigenous Voice report authors 'disappointed' by argument the proposal lacks detail

Frank wrote on Dec 4^th, 2022 at 10:38pm:


Well they would see a reason for setting personal goals, in the money economy, other than mere existence on poverty-level "sit-down money".

That's why alcoholism and crime were reduced in communities participating in the CDEP scheme, before it was canceled by CIS neoliberal market ideologues. 

Whereas the goal - self-directed survival - was always evident in the money-less h-g economy, as I already explained. 

Labor is increasingly unlikely to put out a detailed plan on how an Indigenous Voice to parliament would work before next year’s national vote to constitutionally recognise Aboriginal Australians through an advisory body.

Senior Albanese government sources have told The Australian there is growing concern that granular details about how the Voice would be structured and how it would operate – including its membership – could ultimately derail a Yes vote.

The Uluru Dialogue co-chair Megan Davis, a Cobble Cobble woman and Balnaves Chair in Constitutional Law at the University of NSW, said: “Going out with fully fledged detail is dangerous because the nation needs to vote on the (constitutional) amendment, not the model.”

Professor Davis is a member of the government’s constitutional expert group, which is advising on the final wording of the proposed amendment to guarantee the existence of an Indigenous Voice.

“The purpose of having the amendment is to allow flexibility in the (voice) model,” Prof Davis said.

“There needs to be flexibility in the model, it needs to be able to change, you need agility. The Voice in 2022 is not going to be the same as the Voice in 2052.”
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/referendum-put-before-vote-on-voice-to-p...


This referendum must fail. Asking for a constitutional change vague enough to allow 'flexibility' in all sorts of unforeseen, or rather, deliberately undisclosed, way  is deeply sinister. 

"Prof Calma said the Voice would operate in a similar way to existing advisory bodies, including the auditor-general, law reform commission and Commonwealth ombudsman."


Needless to say, none of them are established in the Constitution.  Why need a constitutional amendment if the Voice is like all the other 1100 Aboriginal advisory bodies?
There's dirty work at the crossroads.

thegreatdivide wrote on Dec 5^th, 2022 at 3:51pm:



What they are not saying is why it needs to be in the constitution.

If it's up to parliament to legislate it's composition and operation then that can be done now, without any constitutional amendment.

The constitutional change is the dirty work at the crossroads - it opens up the way to undisclosed plans around sovereignty, treaty, legal and financial shake-downs of every kind.