Major sporting codes [including NRL] to back Voice to parliament

[Woodsie]

Not to mention that we wouldn't have Rugby League if not for politics and sport combining:
Rugby Football History

Silly me ... I thought it was because players wanted to get paid .

So Muzz .. what do you think is the problem here?

 

[Woodsie]

I am by nature, and education, not a conspiracy theorist ... but does anybody else think that the announcement that the Gov't is about to investigate drastically reducing the major sporting codes ability to earn money from the betting companies ... to the sudden announcement that

... " no problem Albo .. we'll support your voice to parliment"

Dodgy timing at best ...

 

[MuzztheEagle]

Silly me ... I thought it was because players wanted to get paid .

So Muzz .. what do you think is the problem here?

The working class players wanted to be paid. Those who didn't need to work didn't think it should be a problem and the RFU's attitude was if you can't afford to play then don't. This was very political and resulted in the split that gave us rugby league. This was my point - that politics has always existed in not just sport but was the founding cause of the game.

 

[Tragic Eagle]

There's usually a hidden agenda.

 

[Woodsie]

The working class players wanted to be paid. Those who didn't need to work didn't think it should be a problem and the RFU's attitude was if you can't afford to play then don't. This was very political and resulted in the split that gave us rugby league. This was my point - that politics has always existed in not just sport but was the founding cause of the game.

Your definition of what is political is jaw dropping.

For example, when my son and I wanted bacon, eggs and hash browns for breakfast ... and my wife wanted us to have cereal and muesli .... it was just a disagreement and difference of opinions ....

But I guess you would say it was political

 

[jbb/james]

Solid no from me.

There are a lot of issues to address. The shortlist for me being:
1. Very little detail from the government. We don't even know what we are really voting for. My concern is that if we change a small but crucial part of legislation, especially at the constitutional level, then there is a flow on effect of unintended constitutional arguments over law in the high court. What is the government, who is trying to sell this, really afraid of telling us?
2. I have a firm belief that every individual should have equal rights. If a person from one ethnicity or another has more access to influencing law making than another person, then this flies against the idea of democracy. One person = one vote.
3. The idea that any legislation is based on race is appalling, and regardless of it's best intentions is inherently racist.
4. With regard to point 3, indigenous communities want to advise the government on creating law for their people. So is it the case that any changes could lead to one law for some, and a different law for others?
5. How do we prove a person's heritage? The bar according to the Mabo decision is pretty low. I'm not really fussed about who would be a representative, but it would matter which constituents whom any laws and motions would affect.
6. How will this voice to parliament actually address the problems which really affect indigenous people? Such as homelessness & poverty? Will the voice magically effect the levels of violence, rape, and child abuse committed on indigenous persons, which are predominantly committed by other indigenous persons? Deaths in custody anyone? They aren't being killed by police or corrections. They are committing suicide. So what do we do? Do we say gaol for some and good behavior bonds for others dependent upon their cultural backgrounds? After all, if we don't imprison them then they can't kill themselves. Is this problem solved?

A voice to parliament will be a great PR exercise, and all of the inner city late drinking people who are about 1/20th of indigenous heritage will feel good. But in reality not one child will be spared being raped, and not one person will be spared domestic violence which runs rampant in our communities.

I just feel that we need to get in and help the problem properly and cut out the PC garbage. The statistics are there to be seen. My view is the quickest most efficient way to help the problem is through getting these people out of poverty. They need jobs and purpose. But we've missed the opportunity with the current generation. We really need to get the kids into school and educated. Set up the next generation for success.

very good post. very real, i dont disagree with any of that , just some other observations

we allow religion to do all of that currently without a murmer. this system is already flawed beyond belief. the illusion of the equality we have is ridiculous

perhaps it we could get indigenous political donors to up there game , that would get them an accepted voice
a broken system needs a broken approach or an overhaul and an overhaul would IMO have people representing all communties to govern a community.

eg. i think paulines party is off the rails but as a citizen i get she represents quite a few people. i would readily accept that they deserve a seat at the decision making table

 

[Brookie Bob]

The working class players wanted to be paid. Those who didn't need to work didn't think it should be a problem and the RFU's attitude was if you can't afford to play then don't. This was very political and resulted in the split that gave us rugby league. This was my point - that politics has always existed in not just sport but was the founding cause of the game.

No-one is apparently denying the existence of politics in sport, or politically-driven decisions in sport being made, or have been made.

The questions coming back on the subject revolve around whether it's a good thing in general or not.

I have no doubt of the vitriol if I suggested that religion should be deliberately mixed in with sport to drive decision-making. (The truth is I don't - religion should not be used to deliberately drive decision-making in sport). I'm a firm believer of the separation of church and state. I also have no doubt that most of you also distrust religions per se, which probably means that you'll (also) agree on the division between religion and sport.

Do you trust your politicians more? Is politics your 'religion'? We can all ask ourselves - is your 'skin in the game' on politics and sport because you have an ax to grind in a particular political direction?

Religion and politics are a couple of areas which polarize people - mix them in with Rugby League (or any sport) and you'll probably get trouble.

Sport is supposedly neutral ground where we can all come together regardless of race, creed, colour or political leanings. If our self-confessed identities revolve around one of the former, we run the risk of not having our neutral ground - coming together and being able to support MW Sea Eagles. Our agendas will overwhelm our narrative and ability to connect.

 

[MuzztheEagle]

No-one is apparently denying the existence of politics in sport, or politically-driven decisions in sport being made, or have been made.

The questions coming back on the subject revolve around whether it's a good thing in general or not.

I have no doubt of the vitriol if I suggested that religion should be deliberately mixed in with sport to drive decision-making. (The truth is I don't - religion should not be used to deliberately drive decision-making in sport). I'm a firm believer of the separation of church and state. I also have no doubt that most of you also distrust religions per se, which probably means that you'll (also) agree on the division between religion and sport.

Do you trust your politicians more? Is politics your 'religion'? We can all ask ourselves - is your 'skin in the game' on politics and sport because you have an ax to grind in a particular political direction?

Religion and politics are a couple of areas which polarize people - mix them in with Rugby League (or any sport) and you'll probably get trouble.

Sport is supposedly neutral ground where we can all come together regardless of race, creed, colour or political leanings. If our self-confessed identities revolve around one of the former, we run the risk of not having our neutral ground - coming together and being able to support MW Sea Eagles. Our agendas will overwhelm our narrative and ability to connect.

No one is denying the existence of politics in support, but many are calling for the relationship to end, at least for particular issues. And this is what I and others have been trying to highlight - that it has always been a part of the game and that many good things have come out of this.
To illustrate my point you've said;

Sport is supposedly neutral ground where we can all come together regardless of race, creed, colour or political leanings

This only came about because of political movements tied to the game. It wasn't always as good as it is now and, in the eyes of many, it's still not where we want it to be.

But back to the orginal point of the thread, and whether it (the NRL supporting the voice) is the right decision. I do think is this a fair conversation to have but personally I don't think this needs to be based around whether the voice itself is a good idea, and that is what the discussion here is getting dragged back to. Personally, I'd be far more interested in having that conversation than whether the voice is going to take my aussie way of life from me or not!

 

[AlxFromNthNarra]

I'm not touching this topic, other than to say the NRL (and AFL) have a much higher representation of indigenous employees than most organizations, and that most certainly provide at least consideration.

 

[Woodsie]

I'm not touching this topic, other than to say the NRL (and AFL) have a much higher representation of indigenous employees than most organizations, and that most certainly provide at least consideration.

Would agree if the question or issue was ..

"do you support the indigenous community "

But the issue here is far more complex than that .. starting with do you want a change to our constitution ...

I don't think decisions should be made based on how many indigenous players you have ..

 

[ElectricEagle]

Just a general observation regarding anything politic or divisive when attached to sport.

Fans begin as kids. They grow up either playing (insert sport here) and/or watching the sport. Then they become adults with kids etc. Before you know it you have a household collectively with 50 years of supporting a team. With that time, effort, and money, it's fair to say the fans out there have some skin in the game and are invested.

When the team involves itself in politics, especially where there are two sides to the argument then yes you will make some happy, but you may equally or even more so disgruntle your loyal fanbase.

On a purely numbers game, it is unlikely that Manly recruited more fans (I'm talking about proper fans who will stick with us) than it upset during jerseygate. Fortunately I don't think we will ever know the exact fallout because Manly had a major upheaval in coaching staff etc. which would skew any data considerably.

If a sporting brand is to jump on board with a political or activist cause it should be carefully considered. It's why Jane McGrath day is so popular at the cricket. You would be hard pressed to find a person who wants more breast cancer.

In short pick your battles wisely so as not to upset any of your fan base. I'm not sure that the NRL should have jumped on board this one.

 

[Brookie Bob]

This only came about because of political movements tied to the game. It wasn't always as good as it is now and, in the eyes of many, it's still not where we want it to be.

Perhaps we have a different interpretation on what 'political' may mean in this context.

If we're talking about a grassroots people-based movement - not tied to ANY political party or ideology - then I agree. Otherwise - no. The far left - and far right - can both go jump off a cliff as far as I'm concerned - preferably hand in hand.

Who though, is 'we'? The 'we' in 'not where we want it to be'?

What person - of any race, creed, colour, belief, etc - is denied either (a) playing the game of Rugby League, or (b) supporting the game of Rugby League - in Australia?

I hope we're not talking about extra-special 'positive affirmation' - you know, where there is some consensus that a particular group (whoever that is) must be now vested with (more than the average Australian) authority / resources / status / privilege - because they've been hard done by in the past?
As in - we all have equity - but some have more equity than others? We're all equal - but some are (now) more equal than others? Is there a statute of limitations on perceived past oppression? Whose past is free of oppression?

At what point do adult human beings say to themselves, 'I must own my own actions - regardless'? Or is it just easier now for some to huddle under a new 'collective identity' and let that speak for them - even if it promotes a new era of privilege for the select few of the new millennium? I know - you can see it - I'm absolutely over "identity politics" - all I can see is creating brand-new 'us and them' status, and creating widening divisions between people.

I am equally attracted to the concepts of owning your own destiny on a personal level - AND - seeing that the gap between rich and poor is decreased (otherwise you will ensure anarchy and revolution). I don't see these as mutually exclusive, either.

The checks and balances in the current Westminster system are not ideal, but they're better than what I've observed elsewhere.

 

[Woodsie]

If a sporting brand is to jump on board with a political or activist cause it should be carefully considered

And does a current stance, change with a new CEO, or Captain with a different alignment ?

 

[ElectricEagle]

And does a current stance, change with a new CEO, or Captain with a different alignment ?

No not necessarily. But the current situation is there is a question which is limited to a yes or no answer. As an organization, don't pick causes which divide fans.

 

[MuzztheEagle]

Perhaps we have a different interpretation on what 'political' may mean in this context.

If we're talking about a grassroots people-based movement - not tied to ANY political party or ideology - then I agree. Otherwise - no. The far left - and far right - can both go jump off a cliff as far as I'm concerned - preferably hand in hand.

Who though, is 'we'? The 'we' in 'not where we want it to be'?

What person - of any race, creed, colour, belief, etc - is denied either (a) playing the game of Rugby League, or (b) supporting the game of Rugby League - in Australia?

I hope we're not talking about extra-special 'positive affirmation' - you know, where there is some consensus that a particular group (whoever that is) must be now vested with (more than the average Australian) authority / resources / status / privilege - because they've been hard done by in the past?
As in - we all have equity - but some have more equity than others? We're all equal - but some are (now) more equal than others? Is there a statute of limitations on perceived past oppression? Whose past is free of oppression?

At what point do adult human beings say to themselves, 'I must own my own actions - regardless'? Or is it just easier now for some to huddle under a new 'collective identity' and let that speak for them - even if it promotes a new era of privilege for the select few of the new millennium? I know - you can see it - I'm absolutely over "identity politics" - all I can see is creating brand-new 'us and them' status, and creating widening divisions between people.

I am equally attracted to the concepts of owning your own destiny on a personal level - AND - seeing that the gap between rich and poor is decreased (otherwise you will ensure anarchy and revolution). I don't see these as mutually exclusive, either.

The checks and balances in the current Westminster system are not ideal, but they're better than what I've observed elsewhere.

I think you've tried to read way too far into what I've said here. When I said political movement I meant "a group of people working together to achieve a political goal" I.e. working class players wanting to play without the risk of financial ruin and by we, I mean individuals.
Edit: Let's just change political movement to social (not socialist ) movement

 

[MuzztheEagle]

No not necessarily. But the current situation is there is a question which is limited to a yes or no answer. As an organization, don't pick causes which divide fans.

I think this would require a neutral stance to result in zero division though. If a competing organisation/code was to take a stance and the NRL did not, would that not divide fans? If this happened and the number of potential or future fans dropped as a result would this be seen as a failure for the organisation? I guess it would depend on its goals.
I'm not trying to argue a point here, I just think it's where the NRL is potentially coming from (and I don't/wouldn't agree with it)

 

[Budgie]

Solid no from me.

There are a lot of issues to address. The shortlist for me being:
1. Very little detail from the government. We don't even know what we are really voting for. My concern is that if we change a small but crucial part of legislation, especially at the constitutional level, then there is a flow on effect of unintended constitutional arguments over law in the high court. What is the government, who is trying to sell this, really afraid of telling us?
2. I have a firm belief that every individual should have equal rights. If a person from one ethnicity or another has more access to influencing law making than another person, then this flies against the idea of democracy. One person = one vote.
3. The idea that any legislation is based on race is appalling, and regardless of it's best intentions is inherently racist.
4. With regard to point 3, indigenous communities want to advise the government on creating law for their people. So is it the case that any changes could lead to one law for some, and a different law for others?
5. How do we prove a person's heritage? The bar according to the Mabo decision is pretty low. I'm not really fussed about who would be a representative, but it would matter which constituents whom any laws and motions would affect.
6. How will this voice to parliament actually address the problems which really affect indigenous people? Such as homelessness & poverty? Will the voice magically effect the levels of violence, rape, and child abuse committed on indigenous persons, which are predominantly committed by other indigenous persons? Deaths in custody anyone? They aren't being killed by police or corrections. They are committing suicide. So what do we do? Do we say gaol for some and good behavior bonds for others dependent upon their cultural backgrounds? After all, if we don't imprison them then they can't kill themselves. Is this problem solved?

A voice to parliament will be a great PR exercise, and all of the inner city late drinking people who are about 1/20th of indigenous heritage will feel good. But in reality not one child will be spared being raped, and not one person will be spared domestic violence which runs rampant in our communities.

I just feel that we need to get in and help the problem properly and cut out the PC garbage. The statistics are there to be seen. My view is the quickest most efficient way to help the problem is through getting these people out of poverty. They need jobs and purpose. But we've missed the opportunity with the current generation. We really need to get the kids into school and educated. Set up the next generation for success.

Ever heard of lobbyists and their industry?
You're arguing against a transparent voice which can be completely disregarded while failing to acknowledge the massive impact on legislation of a great many self interested industries, all of which is completely hidden from the voting public.
Democracy? Rarely.

 

[ElectricEagle]

Yeah given the amount of Indigenous players present in the NRL I can see why they made the decision. Once again it may cause us to bleed fans.

 

[ElectricEagle]

Ever heard of lobbyists and their industry?
You're arguing against a transparent voice which can be completely disregarded while failing to acknowledge the massive impact on legislation of a great many self interested industries, all of which is completely hidden from the voting public.
Democracy? Rarely.

But it's not transparent. At this moment in time there is no detail. It's hypothetical.

 

[mickqld]

Oh here we go again. Let's drag sport into the virtue signalling world of political debate about the latest agenda. I am sick to death of hearing and seeing sporting organisations either deciding to or being coerced into being mouth pieces for every issue out there. Stick to playing and administering your sport and shut the fu*k up. Let the public decide it's own mind up about current political issues and stay the f*ck out of it.