As an Australian prime minister, how could he not know the division this would have caused? Surely he has a better understanding than that. The Voice is a mere red herring. When you're the prime minister and someone asks you about other documents related to the voice and he says there is none that's pure deception.I think he's genuine in what he says, but he's going with emotion without thinking out all the implications.
The “I haven’t read them” statement in regard to the back pages to the executive summary of Uluru was a flat out lie IMO.As an Australian prime minister, how could he not know the division this would have caused? Surely he has a better understanding than that. The Voice is a mere red herring. When you're the prime minister and someone asks you about other documents related to the voice and he says there is none that's pure deception.
We’re often told that the Voice is something that Aboriginal communities have called for, based on its adoption at the Uluru Convention in 2017. You were at that Convention, what happened there?
It is true that the Uluru Convention agreed to, among other things, a Voice to parliament entrenched in the Constitution.
But for the advocates of the Voice to claim that the proposal had support from Uluru is mischievous.
The group who are pushing for the Voice to parliament controlled the Convention so that you had to vote against all of the propositions, that is a treaty, sovereignty and truth-telling, if you wanted to vote against the Voice.
Back in 2016 when the preliminary dialogues leading up to Uluru took place, Tasmania voted in total opposition to the Voice to parliament. Noel Pearson came down to Tasmania and argued in favour of the Voice to parliament model and the 110 Aboriginal delegates simply rejected it out of hand.
Melbourne did the same but I was told later that the way the vote was carried out gave the impression that both Victoria and Western Australia supported the Voice to parliament, when in fact there was a lot of dissent.
My guess is that most Aboriginal people are opposed to it. But I don’t have any hard data to show that is the case. The claim by the proponents of the Voice that there is Aboriginal support is equally based on guesswork.
Yes, I agree that they do, have a listen to indiginous protests in the 80s and 90s. In the article, they spoke the truth with the Uluru statement which if you research into it deeper you'll come to the same conclusion. Why would anyone want an advisory body that literally wastes money and does bugger all to help anyone? On it's own it's useless unless they can get authority over the federal government to act on the advice. That's why they always say "we never ceded sovereignty", as soon as the govt admits that it will open up the biggest can of worms that anyone has ever seen.I think those people want something even stronger than the Voice, like Lydia Thorpe does, which would be worse for the country in general.
Well the postal vote didn't arrive in the mail today, so the wife and I can't vote.Well another indicator they knew that it was always a mess, was the way they left it until the very last minute to announce the date, the media were calling Oct 14 weeks before it was announced.
Well it was announced on the 11 Sept, we are going away from 02 Oct, so rang and applied for a postal vote on the 12th.
We didn't receive the application form until the 19th, completed it and returned it the same day, received an email this morning 28th to say they had received the application form and were posting the voting forms. Bring back Cobb and Co.
Obviously there was some planning involved.
That is the question, would a treaty where an agreed payment for dispossession of land is negotiated, be worse than enshrining the ability to pressure Government ad infinitum in the constitution and every dispute has to be fought through the high court?I think those people want something even stronger than the Voice, like Lydia Thorpe does, which would be worse for the country in general.
If it was a once only payment which guarantees no more land claims or special services , then fine but somehow I think some people want the rest iof us to be in a constant state of guilt and themselves to be perpetual victims.That is the question, would a treaty where an agreed payment for dispossession of land is negotiated, be worse than enshrining the ability to pressure Government ad infinitum in the constitution and every dispute has to be fought through the high court?
I personally would rather just agree to a negotiated settlement, that drew a line under this circular whining, everyone has a different take on it.
Once only payment.... as in each time a new one's birth is registered?If it was a once only payment which guarantees no more land claims or special services , then fine but somehow I think some people want the rest iof us to be in a constant state of guilt and themselves to be perpetual victims.
Not all of them will want money for their land though. Some of them will want their land back but how do you work out a fair price for a multi-million dollar farming property that's still got years of mortgage to be paid off?That is the question, would a treaty where an agreed payment for dispossession of land is negotiated, be worse than enshrining the ability to pressure Government ad infinitum in the constitution and every dispute has to be fought through the high court?
I personally would rather just agree to a negotiated settlement, that drew a line under this circular whining, everyone has a different take on it.
And how do you account for the value added?Not all of them will want money for their land though. Some of them will want their land back but how do you work out a fair price for a multi-million dollar farming property that's still got years of mortgage to be paid off?
That's what has to be thrashed out, the aboriginals already have land rights over much of Australia, they already receive compensation from mining companies, they already are being paid special payments.Not all of them will want money for their land though. Some of them will want their land back but how do you work out a fair price for a multi-million dollar farming property that's still got years of mortgage to be paid off?
That is what we have at the moment, unless a line is drawn under it, the situation will never change.I think some people want the rest iof us to be in a constant state of guilt and themselves to be perpetual victims.
and years of paid land rates, land tax, and maintenance costs.And how do you account for the value added?
A bush block is now a viable farm with infrastructure and an income etc.
It's a complex and contentious issue.That's what has to be thrashed out, the aboriginals already have land rights over much of Australia, they already receive compensation from mining companies, they already are being paid special payments.
Until it is laid out in a structured sensible way the claims are just pie in the sky nonsense and the ridiculous blame game rolls on endlessly.
When will a definition be made on what percentage ofbeing an Aboriginal is.Once only payment.... as in each time a new one's birth is registered?
More to the point, when will it become unacceptable to use the victim card, as an excuse for not taking some responsibility for your own outcomes?When will a definition be made on what percentage ofbeing an Aboriginal is.
Is it going to be as long as there is a miniscule percent then claiming can be carried on asnausium
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?