The big problem is the people don't trust government to not use it against them.
That's what it comes down to. If we had trust in government the debate would be radically different.
a leading expert commented its estimated in the Australian community at large 1 in 3 children will experience sexual abuse by 18 years of age.
Thats a bit rich coming from a bloke who accused a prominent Aboriginal Woman of "hating blackfellas" with whom who he disagreed.
Mick
Albo needs to make a big U turn, or he's toast.
I assume a Guardian poll would show something different perhaps...
But, who runs a referendum without bipartisan support?? It's dumb, dumb, dumb.
View attachment 160604
Support for a constitutionally enshrined Indigenous voice has fallen below 50 per cent in every state and is ahead of the no vote in only two, with the referendum now split heavily between age, education and state.
An exclusive Newspoll demographic analysis shows the yes case so far failing to secure an absolute majority in any state.
While the race was still close, the referendum based on current attitudes would fail to meet both requirements of a referendum.
The results stand in stark contrast to an analysis in April, before the final wording of the referendum was settled, which showed majority support in every state but Queensland.
The fresh analysis shows the yes vote nationally at 43 per cent when averaged over Newspoll surveys between May and July this year, with the no vote at 46 per cent.
I have asked you twice to show your research on this statistic, and both times you have dodged and weaved. Just like Anthony Albanese does when asked questions about the referendum.
The Yes side is a lie and destined to fail.
Probably doesn't want to risk looking like this.Maybe Mick, what does it say about Price when she refuses to attend Garma or speak to the NT land councils?
Not a good look given she has repeatedly said she speaks for her people begs the question who are her people Canberra elates?
Note Price is very happy to speak at IPA meetings.
What an asinine comment. How is that even relevant to anything? The IPA is a really good think tank which represents a legitimate, non-extreme branch of politics.Note Price is very happy to speak at IPA meetings.
Probably doesn't want to risk looking like this.
https://www.news.com.au/national/po...t/news-story/12e14de21864a6bfb913e3aea24cb000
Maybe Mick, what does it say about Price
Thanks. All seems pretty reasonable to me, especially in comparison to the positions if the various leftist groups. ?Probably wonder what the issue was?
Unfortunately very common the dysfunction around this stuff has been well discussed have a talk to regional medical staff / psychologist's you will get an education question is what's Price doing about it?
Wont get a fix talking to the IPA.
Thats this mob
rs (IPA) is a conservative non-profit free market public policy think tank[2][3][4] based in Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. It advocates free market economic policies such as free markets, privatisation,[5] deregulation of state-owned enterprises, trade liberalisation, deregulation of workplaces, abolition of the minimum wage,[6] criticism of socialism,[7] and repeal of Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975.[8] It also rejects large parts of climate science.[9]
Typical Australians
- Gina Rinehart
- Rupert Murdoch
- Tony Abbott - Liberal Opposition Leader
- George Pell - Australian Cardinal of the Roman Catholic Church
- Michael Kroger - then President of the Victorian division of the Liberal Party of Australia and former director of the IPA
- Mitch Fifield - Liberal Communications Minister
- Robert Doyle - Liberal Lord Mayor of Melbourne
- Denis Napthine - Liberal Premier of Victoria
Recent economic positions of the IPA include:
Note they like slave labour
- lower taxation;[57]
- abolish the minimum wage[58]
- deregulation of the Australian economy;[57]
- privatisation of government bodies like Australia Post, Medibank, the SBS, the Australian Institute of Sport, the National Broadband Network, CSIRO[57] and the ABC;[59]
- reduced government spending;[57]
- greater transparency in government;[citation needed]
- the elimination of existing programs of welfare targeted at Indigenous Australians, with the aim of encouraging transition to work, self-reliance and high incomes;[citation needed]
- maintain or increase the current level of immigration;[citation needed]
- the reduction of Australian Public Service benefits and allowances.[60]
A troll supported by the Moderator just like the other troll... eh
Prevalence of child sexual abuse
The Australian Child Maltreatment Study (ACMS), the first nationally representative study of child maltreatment rates, found that 28.5% of Australians experienced child sexual abuse. Girls experience double the rate of child sexual abuse (37.3% c.f. 18.8% of boys; Mathews, Pacella, Scott, et al., 2023).
Prevalence of child sexual abuse | Bravehearts
Prevalence of child sexual abuse The Australian Child Maltreatment Study (ACMS), the first nationally representative study of child maltreatment rates, […]bravehearts.org.au
That's not how Howard portrayed the problem, certainly sexual abuse is a problem in communities but note after a male was recently charged with over 1,000 sexual abuse's a leading expert commented its estimated in the Australian community at large 1 in 3 children will experience sexual abuse by 18 years of age.
Where is the intervention for that?
Also note Dutton and Price ran the photo opportunity about sexual abuse in Aboriginal communities in the NT as a reason for voting no. It was pointed out the similarities to Howards intervention, the central land council in the NT have asked Price to talk to them about the issue.
Price has so far refused, note they are same tribe as Price.
Note the politics.
Why the Uluru agenda changes the voice game
A significant number of large Australian corporations have supported the Australian Prime Minister in his commitment to embrace the Uluru Statement from the Heart “in full” as part of the “Yes” vote.
But the Uluru statement is a complex document that covers 26-pages with extensive references to a further 86-pages, which comprise a detailed set of minutes that record the decisions of 13 dialogues or seminars held by the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities around Australia.
When Australian boards supported the “Yes” campaign and its embrace of the Uluru Statement, the full statement and its dialogues were not available. Our top chief executives should have known better than to endorse proposals where they didn’t know the detail of what was being embraced.
Now thanks to freedom of information requests the details are available, all Australians can now appreciate the objectives that the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities believe their voice body will achieve.
The Uluru statement skilfully brings together the 13 dialogues to produce a set of aims which Anthony Albanese has embraced as part of the Yes campaign and is therefore also being embraced by large parts of corporate Australia.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese meets with Djawa Yunupingu on day one of Garma Festival on Friday. Picture: Zizi Averill
At the base of the Uluru statement is a deep hostility to the actions non-aboriginal people who came to Australia after James Cook visited and triggered an “invasion”. But that hostility extends to present day where on a proportionate basis “we are the most incarcerated people on the planet”.
The 13 dialogues showed the Aboriginal and Torres Strait island communities had no interest in a patronising preamble to the constitution, which merely sets out their role in Australia’s history. Many Australians believe a “Yes” vote deliver such a preamble to unite the nation. That’s not what the Uluru statement is about. Many will see it as a very divisive document.
The Uluru statement requires recognising “the ancient jurisdictions of First Nation law” and the fact that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders have never ceded “our sovereignty”.
Under the Uluru statement, the voice body should be designed so that it “could support and promote” a treaty-making process which is seen as “a pathway to recognition of sovereignty” and “the vehicle to achieve self-determination, autonomy and self-government”.
The Uluru statement states: “A Treaty could include a proper say in decision-making, the establishment of a truth commission, reparations, a financial settlement (such as seeking a percentage of GDP), the resolution of land, water and resources issues, recognition of authority and customary law, and guarantees of respect for the rights of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples”
While the Uluru statement wants the voice body to foster a treaty that involves reparations that might be related to the GDP, It does not spell out how the calculation might be made. But a low starting point of, say, one per cent of GDP each year would equal around $23bn.
Anthony Albanese is escorted through the Garma camp site by the Red Flag Dancers during Garma Festival at Gulkula. Picture: Tamati Smith/Getty Images
Yet on the surface, the wording of the voice referendum gives no hint that an aim of the body being created is to trigger a treaty that involves reparations. But look deeper. The referendum proposal has been brilliantly crafted by those advising the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities to achieve the Uluru statement goals.
First the proposed words state that “the parliament shall 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”.
Accordingly, non-aboriginal Australians reading those words might not conceive of the Australian parliament agreeing to a treaty with reparations.
But in the wording, the powers of the Australian parliament are to be qualified by being “subject to this Constitution”.
And if the Yes vote is passed, then the constitution will say in unambiguous terms that voice body can make representations on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. There is no qualification to the word “matters” so unless the High Court decides otherwise then just about every matter to be considered by the public service and parliament will involve at least some Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.
So if that constitutional interpretation is correct, then the power of the voice to make representations covers almost everything a government and its public service might do.
But the voice body can only make representations not decisions, so again on the surface, there is no way such a body can trigger the aims of the Uluru statement.
But the Uluru constitutional strategists brilliantly included public servants in the ambit of the voice body, which means that no decision on thousands of matters that are considered each year by the public service can be made without full consideration of matters raised by the voice body.
And it is this is the public service representation power that has the potential to achieve the full aims of the Uluru statement, which Albanese has embraced.
Assuming it is properly resourced (and the High Court is likely to ensure that it is) then the voice body can use its power to make representations on vast numbers of public service decisions which will clog up the system and make government unworkable. A treaty will be the only way out.
Advocates of the Yes vote legitimately say that the body has no intention of undertaking such a clogging manoeuvre.
That may well be the case, but the constitutional change should have been worded in a way that prevented the voice body from having that clogging power and not relying on it making decisions in accordance with what non Aboriginals believe it should do.
Given the Uluru statement clearly sets out that an aim of the voice must be to seek ways to gain a treaty, then clogging is clearly a possible strategy.
Parts of the Liberal Party have a deep fury that leading companies are advocating that Australians vote “Yes” and therefore embrace on such a divisive and financially dangerous course.
If big reparations are required and the Coalition gains power, then almost certainly they will demand that the large companies meet the bill.
And the anger that has been created is so great that at least on the agenda is consideration of a much higher rate of tax for all large companies, with the proceeds (assuming no reparations) going to help smaller enterprises.
When large organisations play blatant politics, advocating a policy against the current opinions of the majority of Australians to please the Prime Minister of the day, they play a dangerous game. The current generation of CEO’s should learn from their predecessors.
Australian bosses advocating for the voice are playing a dangerous game, especially as the full details have only just emerged. Picture: Gaye Gerard/NCA Newswire
ROBERT GOTTLIEBSEN
BUSINESS COLUMNIST
So you think domestic violence against women is a just cause when it's around indigenous issues, enough said.Probably wonder what the issue was?
Left = Loot Everyone For Tragic.Thanks. All seems pretty reasonable to me, especially in comparison to the positions if the various leftist groups. ?
Are you sure about that ?The IPA is a really good think tank which represents a legitimate, non-extreme branch of politics.
A troll supported by the Moderator just like the other troll... eh
Prevalence of child sexual abuse
The Australian Child Maltreatment Study (ACMS), the first nationally representative study of child maltreatment rates, found that 28.5% of Australians experienced child sexual abuse. Girls experience double the rate of child sexual abuse (37.3% c.f. 18.8% of boys; Mathews, Pacella, Scott, et al., 2023).
Prevalence of child sexual abuse | Bravehearts
Prevalence of child sexual abuse The Australian Child Maltreatment Study (ACMS), the first nationally representative study of child maltreatment rates, […]bravehearts.org.au
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?