Tech Council of Australia Supports Indigenous Voice to Parliament
Media Alert
Canberra: Following the announcement of the referendum date, the Tech Council of Australia (TCA) Board has confirmed its support for an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice to Parliament to be enshrined in the constitution.
Kate Pounder, CEO of the TCA said, “From launch, the TCA has made it a priority to increase diversity within the tech sector. That includes greater participation by Indigenous Australians in tech jobs, and more opportunities for Indigenous founders.”
“Supporting the Voice is consistent with our commitment to improve diversity because it can help empower Indigenous communities to have a greater say in policies and decisions that affect them. As a community of innovators, we know that solving hard problems and making improvements starts by understanding pain points listening to the people affected by them.”
“After more than a decade of trying to close the gap, there remains significant inequity in economic and social outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders in Australia. While we are making progress in some areas, it’s clear that our current approaches aren’t achieving the scale of change at the pace that’s required.”
“Change will also require greater action by the tech sector to support Indigenous entrepreneurship and tech job opportunities. Tech companies are already taking action, but we know more can be done. We believe that we all have a responsibility to create a fairer and more inclusive future. This includes lifting our joint efforts to close the digital divide and ensure Indigenous Australians are strongly represented in Australia’s fast-growing, high-skilled and well-paid digital economy.”
Speaking on behalf of the Board, Robyn Denholm, Chair of the TCA said, “The Board agreed this position following a process of engagement and consultation across our membership. The Tech Council recognises that it has an important leadership role to help build support for this reform and to ensure the tech sector is informed with accurate and trusted information ahead of the upcoming referendum. We respect there will be different views on this topic, including by member companies who can take their own positions and as such this is non-binding.”
About the Tech Council of Australia
The Tech Council of Australia is the peak industry body for Australia’s tech sector. Providing a trusted voice for Australia’s technology industry, with over 160 members, the Tech Council comprises the full spectrum of tech companies.
We aim to advise and engage with Australian governments, businesses, and the wider community to help support the ongoing creation, development, and adoption of technology across industries.
Our vision is for a prosperous Australia that thrives by harnessing the power of technology.
Like what we do at The AIMN?
You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.
Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!
Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.
You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969
7 comments
Login here Register here-
B Sullivan
-
Brad
-
Terence Mills
-
Brad
-
Terence Mills
-
Brad
-
Clakka
Return to home pageYet again we are given another pro yes referendum argument that completely ignores the question, why do Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders have to be Constitutionally (and I would argue, unjustifiably) recognised as the First Peoples of Australia before they can be given a voice to Parliament?
What does everybody else have to do to get a voice to Parliament so that they too can have a greater say in policies and decisions that affect them?
This referendum is not about giving people in need the opportunity to present their case to Parliament. It is about constitutionally dividing the people of Australia into first and last, us and them. If you belong to the right class then a yes win will give only you and your class the constitutionally guaranteed privilege of a voice to parliament. If you don’t belong to that class you will have no constitutional entitlement to have a greater say in policies and decisions that affect you, no matter how unjust, how unfair or damaging those policies and decisions may be upon your lives. Unless of course you can persuade a government to fund, authorise and hopefully support a referendum on your behalf so that you too might share a constitutionally recognised privilege.
Privilege is literally a private law that doesn’t apply to everyone. It is not a public right to which everyone is entitled. A society based on privileges that are enshrined in its constitution cannot be anything but a divided society. Haves and have nots, aristos and hoi polloi, nobles and peasants, ubermenschen and untermenschen. First Peoples of Australia and what? Invaders? No, that won’t do. We are all humans, we all belong to the same race and humans are not indigenous to Australia. We did not evolve here like the indigenous wildlife. All humans in Australia belong to the same invasive species. That is a known, scientific fact. Why can’t we change the constitution to recognise that from first to last, all Australians came here from somewhere else or are descended from people who came here from somewhere else? That would be a truly unifying move.
As for the gap. Address the problem. Address poverty and everyone it affects. People aren’t poor because of their ethnicity, they are poor because of their poverty. Consider giving all of the poor a voice to Parliament instead of restricting it to just one ethnic minority.
B Sullivan, have to agree with all points you make. Albo, or whoever is in power, could address all issues faced by First Nations people, really, all Aussies for that matter. I get the impression it’s the Land Councils that are the sticking point in areas of social progress. They’re deliberately holding back improvements (with help from Labor/LNP), as part of a strategy to exacerbate disadvantage so that it becomes a greater point of contention. They all pretend to be helping while all along doing the exact opposite. Lots of useful idiots is all that’s required, that and lots of people unable to see through the scam. Top off with a dollop of duplicitous howler monkey media and, viola.
I’m part through watching a 1989 presentation (YouTube) by Eric Butler (League of Rights) ‘Planned Surrender of Australia’. Talk about an accurate analysis of what is happening. One of the more interesting points made is that the original Aust Constitution was based on the Constitution of Switzerland. Referendum can be used to align policy with the wishes of the people. It’s not that difficult, the govt is meant to serve the people. The gov has no mandate to destroy the sovereignty of this nation. If pollies can’t do the right thing they should resign, go to China or Russia or wherever they will feel at home.
Someone recently asked a politician why so much political corruption here. The response given was that about 2% of politicians are corrupt and onboard with the agenda (as outlined in the Planned Surrender video), about 2% are actively opposed to the agenda and the rest (95%) are cowards who won’t vote on conscience, preferring to keep their income intact.
On the national news this morning one item highlighted the fact that many regional and remote aboriginal communities have poor mobile phone coverage and in some cases no internet connectivity at all. It was noted that this situation was holding back education and business opportunities and was clearly detrimental to people living in these communities. We are also told that this lack of connectivity means that remote Aboriginals don’t know anything about the referendum….helloo !!
I live in a regional community in Far North Queensland where we have poor mobile phone coverage (they call it a black-spot) but nobody does anything about it as it is in the hands of commercial operators (principally Telstra and Optus) and they would only improve their coverage if population numbers were greater and revenue opportunities enhanced : at home we have maintained our landline phone so that we have some coverage.
We are only able to receive internet connection via satellite which is generally good but does not have sufficient speed to allow for consistent streaming ; a number of locals are moving away from the NBN Skymuster satellite to Elon Musk’s Starlink satellite and initial reports are very promising. What is being done to give the aboriginal communities satellite coverage ?
This is not a whinge, we are OK but the remote aboriginal communities who have the same problems are not being heard.
Theses comments support those of B.Sullivan : we don’t need a constitutional Voice to get better communications, we need action !
Where does the Tech Council of Australia stand on these issues ?
Terence, the Tech Council is only ticking the ‘Diversity’ box, just like all other good ‘corporate citizens’ that pretend to have the best interests of First Nations people in mind. If you go to the Tech website you can see who is who on the Board. If they were serious about helping First Nations people they could initiate or help fund fibre-optics to remote communities. Not only is fibre quicker than wifi type transmissions, it does not expose users to lethal or damaging doses of non-ionizing radiation. As the Tech Council is part of the Big Tech agenda which is connected to the Big Pharma agenda, it probably won’t happen. Less sick people equals less profits.
Thanks, Brad
I had a look at their website and they certainly have an impressive Board of heavyweights, so it begs the question why they would just be ticking a Yes to the Voice and not actually doing something positive along the lines you mentioned.
Terence, it’s all about perception. The illusion/facade is built to project a public profile hiding what they’re really up to. The Tech Council can be basically summarized as part of the agenda, ie full speed ahead with AI. You and I are superfluous. Our individual resources can be hovered up after we are bankrupted & siphoned off to the UBI bucket of welfare. The organizers, including Tech Council, sit back and watch the profits from an algorithmically driven economy roll in.
This is the danger of CBDC and digital ID. The would-be controllers, via the political elite-msm and city councils, want us all bedded down in 15-20 minute cities, virtually begging for scraps in a ‘digital-twin’ world. Our access to their world can be turned off in an instance. Don’t like playing the ‘Digital -Twin’ game, bad luck. The purpose of ‘digital-twinning’ is to give as much as is possible the appearance of ‘human creativity’ to machines that will form the mainstay of the techno-elite.
Technocracy is anti-human, few would want it if they understood what is in store for society.
Freedom is dirty word for control freaks.
On the topic of freedom, I checked some of the published submissions to the ACMA Misinfo-Disinfo Bill and found a new and very economical way of making future subs, thus freeing up time. Check this out:
infrastructure.gov.au/have-your-say/new-acma-powers-combat-misinformation-and-disinformation >
Go to bottom of page >
Click on Page 4 >
submission #13953 (infrastructure.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/acma2023-13953-anonymous.pdf).
BS and Brad, you both make me laugh. As I read your rants, I can follow your obsessions, and elected rationale.
There are always biases, and that’s just the nature of human’s quest for survival and perchance a perfection constructed via a reflection on pasts gone and a transposing via imagination to a future desired. Albeit one could consider that perfection connotes an absolute, and an end per se. In that case perfection is static – a failure to grow, an end to the journey – a death. But for abstruse abstractions, this does not appear to be the way of the world, the universe and everything.
It is notable that humans, in discussion, elected to formulate as a means a never-ending process; ‘politics’ and ‘democracy’, more than being imposed on by autocracy, totalitarianism or despotism, all that have often been tried and failed, but persist today in various guises.
There could be anarchy, and there’s always those afraid, or with vested-interests that wish to stay in the past or with the old, and this can be despite the past being wretched, brutal and unfair. And there are those that would move on, understanding that with the gaining of wisdom, there may be a future for the better – hope springs eternal.
It is interesting and understandable that in this referendum, the naysayers, wishing to stay with the old have used fear mongering and brutal revisionism, sophistry and misdirection – they are obviously afraid and / or have a vested interest they believe that may lose – all sorts of bias, prejudices and conspiracies and rationales have emerged, sometimes of dubious relevance, and sometimes of an existential primal nature.
It is also interesting that the origins of the politics of the processes leading to this moment in time of the referendum were bipartisan and supported by the majority of the Oz community. Those processes were undertaken over decades by the hard work of First Nations folk with the assistance of experts, at the instigation of the LNP (now naysayers) leading to the Uluru Statement in 2017. All the Albanese Labor government pledged to do, and has done as a matter of respect is implement what the First Nations folk in the majority have asked for, nothing more, nothing less. And that is not to say Albanese and Labor will stop seeking to do what governments are elected and charged to do.
The referendum will, in what ought be an apolitical structural process, by everyone’s vote, be the decider – that is what the Constitution and the parliament has decreed. What ever the outcome, the world, the universe and everything will move on. The making of lore, and politics will continue, along with the making of laws, and hopefully democracy.
The rest of the world looking on will decide what it thinks of Oz, and Oz will look at itself, and think or not.