Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

The Voice

Jump to new
I am very happy that I sold my Qantas shares, however, disappointed that I have Qantas points. I will use the points, but not keen to fly with them since they became political.

Qantas takes support for the voice to parliament to the skies with ‘yes23’ livery​


Qantas will not rule out further measures to drum up support for the voice to parliament after painting three of its aircraft with the “Yes23” campaign logo.

The Qantas Boeing 737, Jetstar A320 and QantasLink Dash 8 were unveiled at a major event in Sydney on Monday attended by Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, the voice architect Noel Pearson, former AFL star Adam Goodes and Qantas’ entire senior leadership team.

Outgoing chief executive Alan Joyce said they were backing the campaign because they believed “a formal voice to government would help close the gap for First Nations people in important areas like health, education and employment”.

View attachment 160974
Click to expand...
 
Well, perhaps if we need to pay "them" rent then "they" need to pay us to use our roads, our power, our tap water, our sewers, We built all of that so it seems only fair

That also means they will have an income so I guess no more dole, the same as the unemployed people, if you have assets you have to use them up first before any benefits are calculated.

The whole Voice thing will destroy our Country as we know it, very, very sad
 
ABC said a stupid thing about the colour of two of our Matildas, people started to rightfully point out the idiocy of the comment, and so the ABC responded by restricting comments.

IMG_1077.jpeg


IMG_1078.jpeg

IMG_1079.jpeg

IMG_1080.jpeg
 
Albo said on radio today that he hadn't read all the Uluru Statement pages, just the one page executive summary in the front. Why? he was asked. 'Because I don't need to'. :oops: Is he incompetent, or realise how damaging it would be if he admitted he had read it all but still supported the statement 'in full'? Could be both I guess.
 
Sean K said:
Albo said on radio today that he hadn't read all the Uluru Statement pages, just the one page executive summary in the front. Why? he was asked. 'Because I don't need to'. :oops: Is he incompetent, or realise how damaging it would be if he admitted he had read it all but still supported the statement 'in full'? Could be both I guess.
Click to expand...
WHAT. unbelieveable
 
Exactly, and well said Janet Albrechtsen.

When non-Indigenous people are ‘welcomed’ to country, it suggests we are being welcomed to a country that is not ours, to a country that belongs to others.​
​
More than any other campaign, the push to alter the Constitution to provide for an Indigenous-only body that will have special rights over the rest of the population has done much to highlight overreach by Indigenous leaders and their supporters.​
​
One wonders whether the activists behind the Yes campaign realised their insistence upon this constitutional change, and the manner of their campaigning, would get many Australians thinking about a whole range of issues that have been foisted on us and that we have, to date, accepted uncritically.​
​
For many Australians, this project’s overreach is made worse by the means employed to finagle this change into our Constitution, with emotional blackmail, deception and intimidation.​



Welcome to country ‘guilt politics’ can’t force true respect

8718d629016d38d5622bb6f6772f9135?width=1280.jpg
Welcome to Country during the FIFA Women's World Cup Australia & New Zealand 2023 Group D match between China and England at Hindmarsh Stadium in Adelaide.

More than any other campaign, the push to alter the Constitution to provide for an Indigenous-only body that will have special rights over the rest of the population has done much to highlight overreach by Indigenous leaders and their supporters.

One wonders whether the activists behind the Yes campaign realised their insistence upon this constitutional change, and the manner of their campaigning, would get many Australians thinking about a whole range of issues that have been foisted on us and that we have, to date, accepted uncritically.

Overreach in any policy area can have unfortunate consequences, setting back momentum for reform for years to come. It’s no different with Indigenous recognition.

What began as a move to recognise Indigenous history, culture and people became a move to establish a constitutional Indigenous-only voice to parliament on matters affecting Indigenous people only.

A close examination of the proposed wording revealed much more than that – it now envisages a constitutional Indigenous-only voice to executive government as well as parliament, and not limited to matters that only affect Indigenous people.

Perhaps more telling, any research into the Uluru Statement, which the government has committed to implement in full, reveals the voice is only one part of a three-part process – voice, treaty, and truth-telling, with reparations integral to the last two parts.

For many Australians, this project’s overreach is made worse by the means employed to finagle this change into our Constitution, with emotional blackmail, deception and intimidation.

The unfolding of the Yes campaign in this way has many of us thinking much more about other Indigenous shibboleths.

Take welcome to country ceremonies. Here again is another example of overreach: ceremonies demanded by a small group of activists, slotted into schedules by well-meaning white people, paid for by taxpayers, shareholders and others who may have no interest in being welcomed to their own country.

This week, Senator Jacinta Price called for an end to these ceremonies because, she said, “we are all Australians and we share this great land”.

The simplicity and truth of Price’s observation cuts to the heart of the use, and especially the overuse, of welcome to country ceremonies.

If these rituals occurred once in a blue moon, say, at big events only, we might let it ride – a symbolic gesture to Indigenous people.

But routinely now, a welcome to country (performed by an Elder) or an acknowledgment of country (performed by anyone who can rote-learn a few sentences) precedes a school assembly, a board meeting, a footy match, a citizenship ceremony, and so on.

The sheer frequency has many of us wondering more and more about the purpose, meaning and effect of these words. And increasingly, many people are turning away.

In an interview with this newspaper a few months ago, Marcia Langton threatened that if Australians were so ungrateful as to vote no, they could forget about asking her to do a welcome to country.

“I imagine that most Australians who are non-Indigenous, if we lose the referendum, will not be able to look me in the eye,” she says. “How are they going to ever ask an Indigenous person, a Traditional Owner, for a welcome to country? … If they have the temerity to do it, of course the answer is going to be no.”

Langton’s overreach drew a sharp response from readers of this newspaper the likes of which I have not seen since I started writing many moons ago.

People expressed views that Price raised this week – that it’s not at all welcoming to tell Australians that “this isn’t your country” and asking, like Price, for the welcome to country shebang to stop.

Price told me on Monday “schools are getting kids to write acknowledgments to country, in primary schools and in preschools, the pendulum has swung too far on this”.

“It has the opposite effect to what I guess it was hoping to achieve. Welcome to country ceremonies have created opportunities (for some Indigenous people) to make money, to assert themselves as authorities and I think it’s ostracised a lot of Australians who aren’t Indigenous to think that, well, you know what, I belong here too,” she said.

“I’ve been at citizenship ceremonies where a welcome to country’s being given, but basically it’s been a lecture about how miserable our country’s history is and how Aboriginal people have been hard done by, as opposed to it being a day of celebration for new citizens and a welcoming for them to feel like they’re part of the country. So, that’s where I think it has gone a step too far in a lot of cases.”

Price’s concerns about overreach by people she dubs the “activist class” will be shared by many Australians.

Policy and power zealotry is not limited to Indigenous matters, but the voice campaign is certainly one of the worst examples of intemperance working against the common good.

“I’ve been a cross-cultural educator for a number of decades, it’s been about creating understanding to recognise our similarities, not our differences, so that we can be more unified,” Price told me. “But the approach that a lot of activists have taken is to inflict guilt politics on the country.

“And that’s what I see this referendum has certainly been about – guilting people into voting.” The Uluru Statement has been presented as a kind-hearted gesture, a set of words that goes to the heart of recognition and reconciliation.

It is only down to those who have asked questions that we now know the Uluru Statement seeks to alter how our governing powers are exercised in this country, dividing people according to race.

With this background, Australians are beginning to realise welcome to county ceremonies are simply a way of conditioning us for what is to come. When non-Indigenous people are “welcomed” to country, it suggests we are being welcomed to a country that is not ours, to a country that belongs to others.

If that is the case then, not unreasonably, many people can see a direct line from a welcome to country to treaty and reparations. Thomas Mayo and, somewhat more theatrically, Midnight Oil, suggest Australians may need to “pay the rent”.

This only makes sense if we are tenants of land owned by others. The problem for most Australians is that they thought this was one country with a single and exclusive sovereignty in which we all had those rights to land granted by parliament and our courts.

Constant attempts, especially by the ABC, but also many others, to rename our cities and places performs a similar function of conditioning us minus consent.

When the taxpayer-funded national broadcaster takes it upon itself to refer to Sydney-Gadigal or Melbourne-Naarm, it starts the process of delegitimising ownership of land as determined under Australian law.

On Tuesday morning on ABC News Radio, Sydney disappeared; it is simply Gadigal land. This is being imposed on an unwilling population, many of whom are only now starting to recognise what is happening.

With overreach comes a natural scepticism, unfortunate division, even boredom, the very opposite of what is needed – drawing Australians together with authentic respect for one another.

JANET ALBRECHTSEN COLUMNIST
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
JohnDe said:
Exactly, and well said Janet Albrechtsen.

When non-Indigenous people are ‘welcomed’ to country, it suggests we are being welcomed to a country that is not ours, to a country that belongs to others.​
​
More than any other campaign, the push to alter the Constitution to provide for an Indigenous-only body that will have special rights over the rest of the population has done much to highlight overreach by Indigenous leaders and their supporters.​
​
One wonders whether the activists behind the Yes campaign realised their insistence upon this constitutional change, and the manner of their campaigning, would get many Australians thinking about a whole range of issues that have been foisted on us and that we have, to date, accepted uncritically.​
​
For many Australians, this project’s overreach is made worse by the means employed to finagle this change into our Constitution, with emotional blackmail, deception and intimidation.​
Click to expand...
All we can hope for is that the NO campaign wins overwhelmingly. This is a can of worms just starting to be opened.
 
JohnDe said:
Exactly, and well said Janet Albrechtsen.

When non-Indigenous people are ‘welcomed’ to country, it suggests we are being welcomed to a country that is not ours, to a country that belongs to others.​
​
More than any other campaign, the push to alter the Constitution to provide for an Indigenous-only body that will have special rights over the rest of the population has done much to highlight overreach by Indigenous leaders and their supporters.​
​
One wonders whether the activists behind the Yes campaign realised their insistence upon this constitutional change, and the manner of their campaigning, would get many Australians thinking about a whole range of issues that have been foisted on us and that we have, to date, accepted uncritically.​
​
For many Australians, this project’s overreach is made worse by the means employed to finagle this change into our Constitution, with emotional blackmail, deception and intimidation.​
Click to expand...
No doubt the yes campaigners will start to try and shoot us down again.
 
Sean K said:
Albo said on radio today that he hadn't read all the Uluru Statement pages, just the one page executive summary in the front. Why? he was asked. 'Because I don't need to'. :oops: Is he incompetent, or realise how damaging it would be if he admitted he had read it all but still supported the statement 'in full'? Could be both I guess.
Click to expand...
If that is true it is outrageous, imagine if Morrison had come up with that response. :roflmao:

I mean seriously, he is taking the whole country to a referendum, spending millions of dollars supporting the referendum and he hasn't spent the time to read the document? FFS.

Pizz poor planning, pizz poor presentation and now we have pizz poor effort.

This is just becoming absolutely ridiculous, what a bunch of FW's, no wonder they can't answer questions. They expect us to take them seriously, when they can't even bother their ar$e to do their own research.
The executive summary will be someone else's interpretation of the document, so how accurate is Albo's reasoning for calling a referendum, no wonder this is turning to manure.
 
Last edited:
sptrawler said:
If that is true it is outrageous, imagine if Morrison had come up with that response. :roflmao:

I mean seriously, he is taking the whole country to a referendum, spending millions of dollars supporting the referendum and he hasn't spent the time to read the document? FFS.

Pizz poor planning, pizz poor presentation and now we have pizz poor effort.

This is just becoming absolutely ridiculous, what a bunch of FW's, no wonder they can't answer questions. They expect us to take them seriously, when they can't even bother their ar$e to do their own research.
The executive summary will be someone else's interpretation of the document, so how accurate is Albo's reasoning for calling a referendum, no wonder this is turning to manure.
Click to expand...

Listen from the 2min mark. 'Haven't read it' at 2.20.

omny.fm

Anthony Albanese puts forward his ‘yes’ campaign for the Voice, fires shot at Peter Dutton - Mornings with Neil Mitchell

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has put forward his 'yes' campaign for the Voice to Parliament, sparking a tense exchange with Neil Mitchell.
omny.fm omny.fm
 
He even admits at the 2 minute 50 mark, that quote" I respect that people can read the same thing and come to different conclusions".

He obviously hasn't thought much about it if you listen to the explanations, it is definitely imploding and as I said early in the thread it may well have been set up to fail.
I personally believe the whole referendum is a trail run for the Republic debate, which is the main game for the pollies IMO, this referendum is a good one to check out public apathy and compliance. :2twocents
Time will tell
 
Maybe the backlash has started.

Residents turn out in force for a meeting about Mitcham Council’s decision to spend $40k supporting the Yes vote for the Voice campaign

It was standing room only at a suburban council meeting after furious residents were left in the dark about a decision to spend $40k on a campaign for the ‘Yes’ vote.

Mitcham Council has backflipped on its decision to spend almost $40,000 campaigning for the Yes vote ahead of the national Voice to parliament referendum.
At a packed meeting on Tuesday, the motion to revoke the decision was won by a majority vote of seven to three.

Ratepayers crammed into the council chambers and two overflow rooms for the special meeting after they were left in the dark about the decision – made in June – without consulting residents of the area.

Five deputations were heard from community members prior to debate on the issue.

A subsequent motion to reallocate $38,700 in funds towards reconciliation was lost six to four. All the funds originally allocated to the ‘Yes’ campaign were returned to the budget.

The original motion, put forward by mayor Heather Holmes-Ross, to allocate the funds was carried by a majority of councillors at a June 20 full council meeting, with the money to be spent on “facilitating a major public information event targeting undecided voters”.

It was also set to be put towards running “smaller community events” and grants to the Blackwood Reconciliation Group or “other community groups”.

Speaking before the meeting, Mitcham resident Neil Baron slammed the decision to support the Voice proposal without consulting ratepayers.

“If you’re going to spend the money it’s a good idea to ask the community,” Mr Baron, who is retired and lives in Panorama, said.


He urged the council to “get back to what they do” such as providing services for the community, instead of becoming involved in the debate.

South Australian Federation of Residents and Ratepayers Associations president Kevin Kaeding said the decision from the council was inappropriate.

“It’s not appropriate unless it was endorsed by the ratepayers,” Mr Kaeding said.

“Ratepayers’ money has gone into just this one vote.

“It’s an individual thing and it’s up to the individual to vote the way they choose.”

The decision to put the money towards the campaign angered some residents who argued the money should be put toward maintaining unkempt areas.

Pauline Archer, whose property overlooks Donnybrook Reserve, Bellevue Heights, told The Advertiser there was “a general untidiness in the area”.

“It needs to be maintained a lot better than this but that’s what we put up with,” Ms Archer, 77, said.

“Councils should be impartial and they’re there to look after the ratepayers.
“We’ve got some overgrown trees but the council doesn’t believe in pruning.”

Ms Archer described the Voice campaign spending as “unfair” when footpaths and verges in the area need urgent attention.

“A lot of people in that council area would need help with footpaths.”
Click to expand...
 
sptrawler said:
He even admits at the 2 minute 50 mark, that quote" I respect that people can read the same thing and come to different conclusions".

He obviously hasn't thought much about it if you listen to the explanations, it is definitely imploding and as I said early in the thread it may well have been set up to fail.
I personally believe the whole referendum is a trail run for the Republic debate, which is the main game for the pollies IMO, this referendum is a good one to check out public apathy and compliance. :2twocents
Time will tell
Click to expand...

This is also distracting the media and public from a lot of other stuff going on that should be of higher priority. A strategic plan perhaps.
 
sptrawler said:
If that is true it is outrageous, imagine if Morrison had come up with that response. :roflmao:

I mean seriously, he is taking the whole country to a referendum, spending millions of dollars supporting the referendum and he hasn't spent the time to read the document? FFS.

Pizz poor planning, pizz poor presentation and now we have pizz poor effort.

This is just becoming absolutely ridiculous, what a bunch of FW's, no wonder they can't answer questions. They expect us to take them seriously, when they can't even bother their ar$e to do their own research.
The executive summary will be someone else's interpretation of the document, so how accurate is Albo's reasoning for calling a referendum, no wonder this is turning to manure.
Click to expand...
Perhaps a decent comedian could make some mileage out of this BS. What hope is there if the "leader" of the country has noidea of what he is pushing.
To me this just strengthens the NO vote even more.
 
Sean K said:
This is also distracting the media and public from a lot of other stuff going on that should be of higher priority. A strategic plan perhaps.
Click to expand...
Crickey Sean I would have thought this Voice BS belongs on the furtherest back burner.
Far more important things to squabble about, like medical, housing, jobs, inflation.
Oh, I forgot, they're not important as pollies/bum polishers as aren't affected by the worries that affect the peasants.
 

Similar threads

R
The American use of War Pretext Incidents
Replies
6
Views
9K
sptrawler
sptrawler
Top