The Voice

[IFocus]

I have been involved in enough negotiations, to know that you have to go into it with an open mind, nothing can be given that is unaffordable and nothing can be asked that is unreasonable, but if someone stole your property be it a car house, diamond ring etc you would go to the police.
I in no way accept responsibility for what people did 200 years ago, but whether we like it or not it is an issue and it obviously isn't going to go away.
So some way of putting it behind us is required, the voice obviously is just going to be an endless blank cheque, that is just reverse discrimination where our kids our grandkids and their kids just wear the result endlessly.

With a negotiated settlement as the name implies, it compensates the claimants for perceived loss and then everyone moves on, that IMO is only way that the endless playing of the victim card can stop.

Just my opinion and I in no way say I'm right or wrong, only that from my experience it is the only way someone who has been dispossesed of anything, ever seems to move on from going on about it.
The Voice will just add weight to a claim, because as a nation you are agreeing they are forever owed for dispossesion.
Again only my opinion, but treat the desease, not the symptoms.

Maybe you missed it but the Voice is not for that purpose, treaties are already on the table and started as a process with state governments and Territories the Voice is not part of that process its to provide advice to the Federal Government and to enable recognition.

 

[IFocus]

Personally I know how these things go. But out of respect am voting in line with an elder from the local area.

Is the elder an initiated male or urban resident?

If the latter like you likely will have no impact unlike the disadvantage.

 

[sptrawler]

Maybe you missed it but the Voice is not for that purpose, treaties are already on the table and started as a process with state governments and Territories the Voice is not part of that process its to provide advice to the Federal Government and to enable recognition.

If that was the whole story, you wouldn't have the aboriginals disagreeing, that is the IFocus abridged version as usual.

Actually that highlights the issue, if it was just about recognition as you say, Albo would have jumped on Duttons offer, because that was what Dutton proposed.

Like I say you love re writing the script, obviously the organiser training sessions stuck. Lol

 

[TimeISmoney]

Maybe you missed it but the Voice is not for that purpose, treaties are already on the table and started as a process with state governments and Territories the Voice is not part of that process its to provide advice to the Federal Government and to enable recognition.

From what I understand of it the voice panel wanted a national treaty, state treaties are another thing again.
But for your enjoyment here's the video where Noel Pearson says constitutional enshrinement voice comes first.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/video/n...earsons-speech-Voice-2018-Garma-festival.html

 

[Smurf1976]

Damming stuff but well written.

It may be well written but they're failing to understand why the Yes argument is being rejected by many.

Taking a neutral stance on the issue and just looking at the campaign, the biggest failing of Yes advocates has in my view been a failure to clearly communicate exactly what's proposed and why.

Many of the arguments I've seen as an observer are in the category of examples not reasons. They're comparable to advertising a TV by stating a list of movies you could watch on it, or advertising a car by stating a list of towns you could drive to. That's an argument for owning a TV or a car but not necessarily the one being sold.

With the Voice, saying that Aboriginal health could be improved isn't a clear argument for why the Voice is the best way of achieving that, indeed it's not even clear how it would achieve it. Bearing in mind Labor rejects that argument in the context of the rest of society where they see a firm push, against the will of those affected, as necessary on health matters. Hence the Greens' proposed sugar tax and Labor's war on smoking - they see a need to push firmly against the will of the people affected, they don't see consulting them as valid.

As an observer what I'm seeing is a campaign that's inconsistent with the approach to other issues. Those pushing for the Voice reject the same approach being applied to pretty much anything else. As a non-expert observer I may not know which is right but certainly can spot the inconsistency.

At the risk of comparing to an issue I could be seen as stereotypically associated with and perhaps biased, but I do see definite similarities between the Yes campaign for the Voice and the environmental movement when it first achieved victories.

It took the dam builders, loggers and others quite some years to get their minds around why anyone disagreed and that there even was a legitimate "no" argument. That's an important distinction - it wasn't that they didn't agree with the no case based on some measure of assessment but rather, it's that they genuinely didn't grasp the reasons for it.

I see a similarity with that and the Voice. I think the Yes side really isn't understanding why there's such support for the No case and is wrongly attributing it to all sorts of things that only reinforces the view of those opposed. As was the case with the developers, it's going to take a lot of soul searching to work out where they've gone wrong and to get back on track.

 

[sptrawler]

The good thing I'm seeing coming out of the 'voice', is that Australians may be starting to grow a pair, and I don't mean that in any other way, than to say they are standing up and saying we wont cowtow just because we are told to.

They aren't voting a certain way because they are being embarassed, blame shamed and coerced into doing so, it may actually be a defining moment in Australian history, where they cant be humiliated and brow beaten into submission by politicians.

Maybe the mandatory vaccine issue or the people who were locked out of their own States started people thinking and now the voice has brought it to a head, who knows but It is certainly a moment in history where the middle class actually dig in.
From the snippets I can see on the limited internet, it seems like the only strong Yes vote remaining is inner city elites in Melbourne and Sydney.

Interesting times IMO.

 

[sptrawler]

Maybe you missed it but the Voice is not for that purpose, treaties are already on the table and started as a process with state governments and Territories the Voice is not part of that process its to provide advice to the Federal Government and to enable recognition.

I just thought, when Dutton announced that if he was elected he would have another referendum to recognise the aboriginals in the constitution.

At the time I thought that was a weird thing to propose, but as in your post, it actually shuts the backdoor for Albo to say what you are now saying.
Politics, it's a strange old game.

By the way you might have missed it, a while back I actually posted up the treaty that Barnett signed up, but I know you didn't because you've since quoted it. Lol

 

[SirRumpole]

The good thing I'm seeing coming out of the 'voice', is that Australians may be starting to grow a pair, and I don't mean that in any other way, than to say they are standing up and saying we wont cowtow just because we are told to.

They aren't voting a certain way because they are being embarassed, blame shamed and coerced into doing so, it may actually be a defining moment in Australian history, where they cant be humiliated and brow beaten into submission by politicians.

Maybe the mandatory vaccine issue or the people who were locked out of their own States started people thinking and now the voice has brought it to a head, who knows but It is certainly a moment in history where the middle class actually dig in.
From the snippets I can see on the limited internet, it seems like the only strong Yes vote remaining is inner city elites in Melbourne and Sydney.

Interesting times IMO.

The biased view of the ABC and its pro voice propaganda would have turned off a lot of people (assuming a lot of people still watch the ABC).

Pro Voice has always been an emotional message, eg Johnny Farnham and all the virtue signalling companies and organisations that have jumped on the bandwagon for publicity reasons and people resent that.

The voters are essentially conservative, they need a good reason to vote for change and haven't been given one in this campaign.

 

[IFocus]

If that was the whole story, you wouldn't have the aboriginals disagreeing, that is the IFocus abridged version as usual.

Actually that highlights the issue, if it was just about recognition as you say, Albo would have jumped on Duttons offer, because that was what Dutton proposed.

Like I say you love re writing the script, obviously the organiser training sessions stuck. Lol

Again you may have missed it but the Voice is to provide advice to the Federal Government that is made public, this isn't the case now and never will be under the Coalition.

The recognition part allows for recognition without further claims.

Duttons recognition is a nothing however wasting another $400 mil.

 

[IFocus]

I see a similarity with that and the Voice. I think the Yes side really isn't understanding why there's such support for the No case and is wrongly attributing it to all sorts of things that only reinforces the view of those opposed. As was the case with the developers, it's going to take a lot of soul searching to work out where they've gone wrong and to get back on track.

I suspect this will be it and no more Albanese had the courage to have a go with nothing really political wise to gain and will take a hit doing so.

Don't think we will see another politician with the same heart certainly not from the Coalition unlikely from Labor.

Australia doesn't like Aboriginals.

C'est la vie.

 

[SirRumpole]

Don't think we will see another politician with the same heart certainly not from the Coalition unlikely from Labor.

Julian Leser showed some principles at least, I don't agree with him but I admire his stand.

 

[JohnDe]

I suspect this will be it and no more Albanese had the courage to have a go with nothing really political wise to gain and will take a hit doing so.

Don't think we will see another politician with the same heart certainly not from the Coalition unlikely from Labor.

Australia doesn't like Aboriginals.

C'est la vie.

Here we go, the campaign isn't even over and already the blame game has started. Laborites looking to shift the blame, instead of having a proper analysis of the cause.

Here's a start for you, how can the Australian voter have confidence with a proposed change to a safe constitution when the proponents of change haven't been able to explain the change to Australians or bring all indigenous proponents together?

 

[Sean K]

Australia doesn't like Aboriginals.

Pretty much sums up the Yes campaigns tactics to sell this. Thanks.

Voters face a difficult decision on Saturday in a referendum in which political divisions and legitimate concerns have overshadowed the intent of what was trying to be achieved. As a national newspaper, we have come to the debate with a proud history of reporting on issues that impact Indigenous Australians over many decades and a track record of goodwill towards constitutional recognition since the issue was first raised. We emphatically support closing the gap and acknowledge the reality expressed by Indigenous Affairs Minister Linda Burney and others that life expectancy for Indigenous Australians is lower, incarceration rates are higher, health outcomes poorer and levels of domestic and family violence are worse, particularly in remote communities. We want greater reconciliation and constitutional recognition of Indigenous Australians and for them to have a greater voice in decision-making on matters that affect them. These principles are essential for the long-run social and political compact of the nation.

It seems, however, that the model being offered is likely to be rejected by a significant number of Australians. And even if, against the odds and the polls, the referendum does succeed on Saturday, it will leave the community divided. There are a number of reasons for this, but chief among them is the fact that even the strongest advocates for a Yes vote have not adequately explained how the voice would work. In Indigenous affairs, our approach has been that symbolic gestures must always be accompanied by practical measures designed to close the gap and improve the lives of Indigenous Australians, particularly those in remote communities. This has been the bedrock of our long association with and support for Indigenous leader Noel Pearson, who has argued forcefully that reconciliation must be grounded in the re-establishment of basic social norms. “It is families who climb stairs,” he once said. “No one has come up with a mechanism for social uplift that involves a mass elevator for a community to ascend all at once.”

The politics of the voice campaign are informed by the Howard government’s intervention in the Northern Territory in response to the Little Children are Sacred report that detailed widespread community dysfunction and abuse against women and children. The intervention was opposed by many urban elites and unwound by the Rudd Labor government. But more than anything, the intervention brought to light the role bureaucratic ineptitude has on the lives of Indigenous Australians in remote areas. The performance of bureaucracy has been a key issue in this referendum debate and Yes proponents have been called on to explain how a constitutionally enshrined voice will make a difference. Their challenge was to address the passionate advocacy of voice opponent Jacinta Nampijinpa Price, who argues an industry has thrived off the narrative of separatism and a handful of people have benefited handsomely as a result. Her argument is that rather than create a new bureaucracy permanently etched into our Constitution, we should concentrate on fixing the structures that exist.

Whatever happens in the referendum on Saturday, the need for greater accountability cannot be ignored. The issues will remain the same: how best to recognise Indigenous Australians and deliver better outcomes for those still living in remote community settlements. This responsibility flows inevitably from the High Court’s Mabo decision in 1992 to recognise occupation prior to European settlement and thus overturn the legal fiction of terra nullius. The Mabo decision led to prime minister John Howard’s failed attempt to have Indigenous Australians recognised in a preamble to the Constitution.

Failure then led to the process through which the attempt to have Indigenous Australians recognised in the Constitution through a voice to parliament was born. A Referendum Council authorised the Uluru Dialogues that culminated in the Uluru Statement from the Heart, published in May 2017, which called for “the establishment of a First Nations voice enshrined in the Constitution”. The Uluru Statement remains the foundation on which the voice referendum campaign has been built. The issue was brought to a head when, on election night in May 2022, a victorious Anthony Albanese declared his commitment to introducing the Uluru Statement from the Heart in full in Labor’s first term. In response, we said the Albanese government had a mandate for a referendum on constitutional recognition and to establish an Indigenous voice. But we said: “The end game must be improving the lives of disadvantaged Indigenous Australians, especially in remote areas, not championing symbolic gestures.”

From a healthy majority of Yes support when the issue of a referendum was first raised, a majority of voters in September 2023 were telling Newspoll they would vote no. To succeed, a referendum must win a majority of votes in a majority of states. Whatever the outcome on Saturday, the Prime Minister must accept responsibility for what has been a difficult turn of events. Mr Albanese has shown himself prepared to play politics with an issue that had been years in the making. By arguing for change on the basis of the vibe, he has understated the significance of what is at stake. Objections to the way in which he has handled the framing of the referendum question and powers of the voice have been detailed by editor-at-large Paul Kelly. The selected model has been surrounded by disputes over its legal implications and legitimate concerns that it would vastly complicate our governance and undermine classic liberal principles of citizenship equality that were fundamental to our society. Kelly said the notion of equal citizenship was terminated as a consequence of implanting in the Constitution a group rights body that represents one group of Australians for the specific purpose of giving this body unique access to advise, influence and determine public policy across the board. Suspicions about the process were compounded by the government’s refusal to convene a constitutional convention or authorise a full-scale parliamentary assessment at the outset.

Along the way vocal supporters of the voice, including constitutional lawyer Professor Greg Craven, Father Frank Brennan and Liberal MP Julian Leeser, have raised their concerns. Each has been prepared to persevere despite not agreeing with how the referendum question and consultation had been handled. Central to the Albanese government’s approach was the decision to reject calls for a voice to be legislated so it could be road-tested before it was put into the Constitution. This has left Yes proponents unable to answer detailed questions about how a voice would operate and what its powers would be, because these will not be decided by parliament until after the referendum.

Adding the voice to the Constitution has raised valid concerns about what impact there could be from an activist High Court. Assurances given about the limits to the authority and scope of the voice once it is in the Constitution are well-meaning but not definitive or possible to give. Voters know that once a change has been included in the Constitution it cannot easily be altered. Given this is the case, it is unreasonable that there is no clear delineation on matters the voice can concern itself with.

Claims the voice would not involve itself with decisions on things such as defence, Reserve Bank policy and the date of Australia Day cannot be easily accepted, given architects of the voice proposal have said they fully intended that that would be the case. Too little is known about how remote communities with the greatest needs will be represented by a voice that has limited members and will operate primarily in the nation’s capital.

Mr Albanese’s greatest failing has been that no genuine attempt was made to achieve bipartisanship. Claims that opponents of the voice had been swayed by a campaign of misinformation do not stand up to proper scrutiny. Mr Albanese proposed a maximalist position on the referendum question that included advice to executive government, and he refused to amend the question to win the support of detractors. Fundamentally, the issue of equality for everybody under the Constitution is something many people simply are not willing to surrender or dilute. Inevitably, the fraught experience of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission has weighed heavily on the minds of many.

As a newspaper that has championed Indigenous rights for many decades, we do not believe a No vote can be interpreted as a reflection of community ill-will towards Indigenous Australians. Rather, it will be a result of government failure to adequately consult and deliver bipartisan support for a workable model.

History shows successful referendums normally win with a big majority and carry all states. Mr Albanese’s goal was to find a model that had broad support and, if that support was not forthcoming, then tell the nation that another form of recognition was going to be necessary. As it stands, the model is flawed and the process has divided Australians rather than unite them. It is for this reason that we are unable to endorse a Yes vote. Whatever the result, as a nation we must continue to strive for proper recognition of Indigenous Australians in a form that will help deliver the fruits of reconciliation for everybody.

 

[wayneL]

Australia doesn't like Aboriginals.

C'est la vie.

Of all my clients and friends, only one is a yes (and us wavering), the rest resolutely no.

Yes so many are very happy with the prospect of our first indigenous PM as spoken on this very thread.

Australia doesn't like grifters and race baiters. Australia likes good people, no matter which race.

N'est-ce pas?

 

[TimeISmoney]

Of all my clients and friends, only one is a yes (and us wavering), the rest resolutely no.

Yes so many are very happy with the prospect of our first indigenous PM as spoken on this very thread.

Australia doesn't like grifters and race baiters. Australia likes good people, no matter which race.

N'est-ce pas?

And a lot of them are very angry about the big leaks in the funnel of grant money to the grassroots people and they want to see accountability for once.

 

[IFocus]

Pretty much sums up the Yes campaigns tactics to sell this. Thanks.

View attachment 163967

Voters face a difficult decision on Saturday in a referendum in which political divisions and legitimate concerns have overshadowed the intent of what was trying to be achieved. As a national newspaper, we have come to the debate with a proud history of reporting on issues that impact Indigenous Australians over many decades and a track record of goodwill towards constitutional recognition since the issue was first raised. We emphatically support closing the gap and acknowledge the reality expressed by Indigenous Affairs Minister Linda Burney and others that life expectancy for Indigenous Australians is lower, incarceration rates are higher, health outcomes poorer and levels of domestic and family violence are worse, particularly in remote communities. We want greater reconciliation and constitutional recognition of Indigenous Australians and for them to have a greater voice in decision-making on matters that affect them. These principles are essential for the long-run social and political compact of the nation.

It seems, however, that the model being offered is likely to be rejected by a significant number of Australians. And even if, against the odds and the polls, the referendum does succeed on Saturday, it will leave the community divided. There are a number of reasons for this, but chief among them is the fact that even the strongest advocates for a Yes vote have not adequately explained how the voice would work. In Indigenous affairs, our approach has been that symbolic gestures must always be accompanied by practical measures designed to close the gap and improve the lives of Indigenous Australians, particularly those in remote communities. This has been the bedrock of our long association with and support for Indigenous leader Noel Pearson, who has argued forcefully that reconciliation must be grounded in the re-establishment of basic social norms. “It is families who climb stairs,” he once said. “No one has come up with a mechanism for social uplift that involves a mass elevator for a community to ascend all at once.”

The politics of the voice campaign are informed by the Howard government’s intervention in the Northern Territory in response to the Little Children are Sacred report that detailed widespread community dysfunction and abuse against women and children. The intervention was opposed by many urban elites and unwound by the Rudd Labor government. But more than anything, the intervention brought to light the role bureaucratic ineptitude has on the lives of Indigenous Australians in remote areas. The performance of bureaucracy has been a key issue in this referendum debate and Yes proponents have been called on to explain how a constitutionally enshrined voice will make a difference. Their challenge was to address the passionate advocacy of voice opponent Jacinta Nampijinpa Price, who argues an industry has thrived off the narrative of separatism and a handful of people have benefited handsomely as a result. Her argument is that rather than create a new bureaucracy permanently etched into our Constitution, we should concentrate on fixing the structures that exist.

Whatever happens in the referendum on Saturday, the need for greater accountability cannot be ignored. The issues will remain the same: how best to recognise Indigenous Australians and deliver better outcomes for those still living in remote community settlements. This responsibility flows inevitably from the High Court’s Mabo decision in 1992 to recognise occupation prior to European settlement and thus overturn the legal fiction of terra nullius. The Mabo decision led to prime minister John Howard’s failed attempt to have Indigenous Australians recognised in a preamble to the Constitution.

Failure then led to the process through which the attempt to have Indigenous Australians recognised in the Constitution through a voice to parliament was born. A Referendum Council authorised the Uluru Dialogues that culminated in the Uluru Statement from the Heart, published in May 2017, which called for “the establishment of a First Nations voice enshrined in the Constitution”. The Uluru Statement remains the foundation on which the voice referendum campaign has been built. The issue was brought to a head when, on election night in May 2022, a victorious Anthony Albanese declared his commitment to introducing the Uluru Statement from the Heart in full in Labor’s first term. In response, we said the Albanese government had a mandate for a referendum on constitutional recognition and to establish an Indigenous voice. But we said: “The end game must be improving the lives of disadvantaged Indigenous Australians, especially in remote areas, not championing symbolic gestures.”

From a healthy majority of Yes support when the issue of a referendum was first raised, a majority of voters in September 2023 were telling Newspoll they would vote no. To succeed, a referendum must win a majority of votes in a majority of states. Whatever the outcome on Saturday, the Prime Minister must accept responsibility for what has been a difficult turn of events. Mr Albanese has shown himself prepared to play politics with an issue that had been years in the making. By arguing for change on the basis of the vibe, he has understated the significance of what is at stake. Objections to the way in which he has handled the framing of the referendum question and powers of the voice have been detailed by editor-at-large Paul Kelly. The selected model has been surrounded by disputes over its legal implications and legitimate concerns that it would vastly complicate our governance and undermine classic liberal principles of citizenship equality that were fundamental to our society. Kelly said the notion of equal citizenship was terminated as a consequence of implanting in the Constitution a group rights body that represents one group of Australians for the specific purpose of giving this body unique access to advise, influence and determine public policy across the board. Suspicions about the process were compounded by the government’s refusal to convene a constitutional convention or authorise a full-scale parliamentary assessment at the outset.

Along the way vocal supporters of the voice, including constitutional lawyer Professor Greg Craven, Father Frank Brennan and Liberal MP Julian Leeser, have raised their concerns. Each has been prepared to persevere despite not agreeing with how the referendum question and consultation had been handled. Central to the Albanese government’s approach was the decision to reject calls for a voice to be legislated so it could be road-tested before it was put into the Constitution. This has left Yes proponents unable to answer detailed questions about how a voice would operate and what its powers would be, because these will not be decided by parliament until after the referendum.

Adding the voice to the Constitution has raised valid concerns about what impact there could be from an activist High Court. Assurances given about the limits to the authority and scope of the voice once it is in the Constitution are well-meaning but not definitive or possible to give. Voters know that once a change has been included in the Constitution it cannot easily be altered. Given this is the case, it is unreasonable that there is no clear delineation on matters the voice can concern itself with.

Claims the voice would not involve itself with decisions on things such as defence, Reserve Bank policy and the date of Australia Day cannot be easily accepted, given architects of the voice proposal have said they fully intended that that would be the case. Too little is known about how remote communities with the greatest needs will be represented by a voice that has limited members and will operate primarily in the nation’s capital.

Mr Albanese’s greatest failing has been that no genuine attempt was made to achieve bipartisanship. Claims that opponents of the voice had been swayed by a campaign of misinformation do not stand up to proper scrutiny. Mr Albanese proposed a maximalist position on the referendum question that included advice to executive government, and he refused to amend the question to win the support of detractors. Fundamentally, the issue of equality for everybody under the Constitution is something many people simply are not willing to surrender or dilute. Inevitably, the fraught experience of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission has weighed heavily on the minds of many.

As a newspaper that has championed Indigenous rights for many decades, we do not believe a No vote can be interpreted as a reflection of community ill-will towards Indigenous Australians. Rather, it will be a result of government failure to adequately consult and deliver bipartisan support for a workable model.

History shows successful referendums normally win with a big majority and carry all states. Mr Albanese’s goal was to find a model that had broad support and, if that support was not forthcoming, then tell the nation that another form of recognition was going to be necessary. As it stands, the model is flawed and the process has divided Australians rather than unite them. It is for this reason that we are unable to endorse a Yes vote. Whatever the result, as a nation we must continue to strive for proper recognition of Indigenous Australians in a form that will help deliver the fruits of reconciliation for everybody.

Given the rubished published by the Australian against the whole issue based largely on politics anything but Labor and the world will end the above is absolute vomit.

Maybe you haven't read the comments in this thread its clear most here dont like or have never met Aboriginals.

 

[JohnDe]

Given the rubished published by the Australian against the whole issue based largely on politics anything but Labor and the world will end the above is absolute vomit.

Maybe you haven't read the comments in this thread its clear most here dont like or have never met Aboriginals.

PS. my father in-law remarried 20 years ago, his wife is indigenous, they have a daughter and live in Katherine Northern Territory.
I have customers that are indigenous, and they travel back to their country regularly.

From the ABC

 

[Sean K]

Given the rubished published by the Australian against the whole issue based largely on politics anything but Labor and the world will end the above is absolute vomit.

Maybe you haven't read the comments in this thread its clear most here dont like or have never met Aboriginals.

The Australian has been pretty balanced. Given equal time to both sides. Kenny the most prominent but everyone’s had a say.

The majority of yes voters probably haven’t met an Aboriginal. I lived in Darwin for 3 years and led an Army health team into a community so I have my own perspective. Yes, I’ve actually met one.

The solution to closing the gap is the money actually getting to the coal face and delivering programs. Not multiple levels of bureaucracy siphoning off the funds on the way down. Classic example is the half a billion given to Pearson related projects in Cape York for about 3000 aboriginals. Seems to have disappeared with zero results according to him.

 

[sptrawler]

The biased view of the ABC and its pro voice propaganda would have turned off a lot of people (assuming a lot of people still watch the ABC).

Pro Voice has always been an emotional message, eg Johnny Farnham and all the virtue signalling companies and organisations that have jumped on the bandwagon for publicity reasons and people resent that.

The voters are essentially conservative, they need a good reason to vote for change and haven't been given one in this campaign.

Spot on, I want to see politicians fix up what is already there, not just add more dung to the Canberra heap.
Adding more and more levels of Govt, when they can't control the accountability of what is already there, is just crazy.
Like I said in the early stages of the thread, if everyone accepts that the departments are failing, why aren't investigations being carried out, they seem keen to start investigations into everything else.
Find the corruption and start holding people accountable for the failings.

 

[wayneL]

Maybe you haven't read the comments in this thread its clear most here dont like or have never met Aboriginals.

What a putrid take

I grew up in Morley/Embleton among a fairly substantive population. We mixed all the time. I've lived in Geraldton, 7% indigenous. One of my clients there was an Aboriginal social worker. Another indigenous client in Qld was also an Aboriginal social worker, working with abused children. I currently live spitting distance from Midland, also a big indigenous area. My wife's bestie growing up indigenous.

I say this not to score virtue points, but to show that you are talking out of the hole in your a55.

For sure there are some I dislike, some I like, and some I love... Pretty much like Whitefella, Jews, Moslems, Asians or Africans . So spare us the purulent lamebrained insults because things aren't going going how you want them to. It's childish and stupid.