This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

The Voice

Another way of looking at it could be, the outcome of this referendum by demographic was very similar to the last one which was for the republic.

Maybe the reason the elites voted for both, was because the inner city Syndey/Melbourne/Canberra elites had the most to gain from a republic and the least to lose from a voice to parliament, who knows?
Statistics can be interpreted as the reader wants.
 
I just wish the left would take the L and STFU. The absolute petulant childishness has been something to behold.

Here we have even the prime minister acting like 13-year-old girl that hasn't got her way.

Meanwhile Australia stays divided and real solutions for the disadvantaged are increasingly a very long way off.
 
This article sums it up well and the very last statement and sentence actually nails the whole issue.

 
Best holes "setting back reconciliation" is really giving me the irrits. Reconciliation can not happen with a top-down, political approach. It will always leave some party aggrieved.

True reconciliation can only happen with a bottom up approach, starting with individuals, families, communities and eventual and eventually Nationwide. Someone has to stick their hand out and say "bygones are bygones". Someone has to be magnanimous, someone has to forgive, someone has to open an opportunity.

Somebody has to start looking at each other and say brother, instead of black @#$&+& or white &$#@... At the community and individual level.

Government actions, because they are ideological, can only ever divide.
 
For many people, rightly or wrongly, there is nothing to reconcile.
Especially those not born here, they have no skin in this game.
This cannot be overcome easily.
I don't hold much hope for reconciliation except at the usual superficial political level.
Mick
 
Exactly, the bottom line is funding and who is going to wear it IMO.
I think it should be a State issue not a Federal issue, because each State has completely different issues related to the aboriginals and each need to be addressed differently.
The issues prevalent in Alice Springs, Jigalong and Balgo, are completely different from those in Toorak and Vaucluse.
If it is run out of Canberra, it will be another bottomless pit of snout dipping IMO, as the referendum highlighted.
They already run the aboriginal affairs department out of there and the Govt has said they are useless, then to top it off they all voted Yes, to agree they are useless, but want to keep the controlling body there. Lol
Obviously those in Canberra would be saying Jigalong, is that a dance or something.
 
Last edited:
Labor seems to have ditched it's promise of delivering the Uluru Statement IN FULL.

Who would have thunk?

View attachment 164184
Another well intended brain fart that will take a while for the smell to disperse, hopefully before the next election.

Watch for splash of cash to help middle Australia, who just gave them a huge kick in the goolies, because those middle class going to work every day, see the price of the house they want to buy, going up much faster than the double income families who are working three jobs, savings are going up.

Meanwhile, the Govt can always find someone more deserving than them.

This will end badly IMO.
 

I guess my point was Australians are more concerned with 1st world problems rather than addressing the 3rd world problem that exists in Australia.

A lot of people time and effort have gone into this for little return. The Voice was a very low risk proposition giving over no power but at the same time empowering Aboriginal communities to be at the table in a transparent way shining a light into their affairs.

Australia has rejected this approach realistically that’s the end of the conversation.

My heart goes out to those Aborigines who worked for the opportunity to progress in such a minor step and have been rejected by Australians comprehensively.
 
IMO you're never going to empower aboriginals from Canberra, they can fund it, but they know fck all about it.
Fund the States to sort it.
 
IMO you're never going to empower aboriginals from Canberra, they can fund it, but they know fck all about it.
Fund the States to sort it.

Federal Government policy is made in Canberra why would you ignore that?

Howard ran the intervention how would the states change that, hint they couldn't.
 
Federal Government policy is made in Canberra why would you ignore that?

Howard ran the intervention how would the states change that, hint they couldn't.
Hint it hasn't worked, you might have missed that, so logics says you move the the team closer to the workface, you don't make a bigger head office.

That's the difference between people who fix $hit and people who talk up a storm and have never achieved much.

What is the definition of stupid, doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. Canberra down to a tee, even Albo says they have stuffed up and are useless and he has been in Federal parliament since he was a kid.
 
Last edited:
It would be interesting to see how many of the main drivers of the voice would be as vocal, if a condition of the voice was, they had their offices moved to Wiluna, Halls Creek, Alice Springs, Mount Isa, Chaters Towers and they had to be based there.
We wouldn't have even had a referendum is my guess.
 
true Mick: voluntarily using the extremes:
I owe nothing to a first nation here or in Canada or Taipei or Chile; I landed here, I paid, I paid, got taxed and paid more ;
-> my ancestors built a western society which offers you cars, food on the table or in a fridge freezer, medicines and the tech and software in mobile phones.
My wife grandmother was a stolen generation , ripped from her mum ..yes this was happening in France too for single mums etc
And first nations in the EU are getting submerged under a wave of invaders and are not even able to raise the subject publicly legally...
So..hum
 
That sounds nice for the glossy brochure, most people think it was just another self serving sector of Government being set up, time to move on and come up with something that will work.
It's a bit like Allan Joyce, the greatest mate and champion of the downtrodden, until he isn't the one who can give you a seat in business class, then he is the biggest ar$hole ever.
Talk about shallow people. Lol
 
As I'm looking at it, your comment does cut close to the bone but from a different perspective.

What I and I think many have in mind, and I'll use some examples to illustrate including on other subjects:

It used to be the case that the push was to deal with violence and abuse. So things like people being bashed or raped and so on and I think it's fair to say no respectable person would dispute that's something that needs to be prevented.

In recent times however that push has shifted - no longer are we talking about someone being bashed senseless, now the complaint is that someone called them names. Names yes, words, spoken words not a fist or kick in sight.

It used to be that the environmental push was to save places of special significance eg Fraser Island, Franklin River, Kakadu and so on and whilst some disagreed they could at least follow what the argument was about and that there was some basis to it, any disagreement being one of value judgements about priorities. The value of the resource for human use versus the value of the unspoilt natural environment.

That very rapidly escalated to a broad attack on pretty much any development in regional areas apart from the big mines in WA and Qld. It went from saving a few special places to a broad attack on the regions and ended up completely wiping out entire industries and creating regions of sustained economic disadvantage which remain to this day.

It used to be that we sent people to prison for violent crimes, arson, major fraud and things like that.

Today we hear an endless stream of excuses about hard upbringings and so on to justify not sending someone to prison for doing something most agree warrants it. But call someone names or get their gender wrong and it's off to prison you go. Because yeah, we all know calling someone a rude name is more serious than burning the local shops to the ground or killing an elderly person walking down the street.

It used to be that we had welfare for people who for whatever reason found themselves in trouble. In that context few begrudged the idea that we provide support to help them get back up on their feet or, for those with genuine serious disabilities etc, support them for life. In a civilised society that seems like the right thing to do and, crucial point, there aren't many such people so the cost per worker is minimal. It's a nice reassurance for everyone knowing it's there should you ever need it.

Today we've come to a point where there's a government handout to replace a light bulb and I mean that literally, in some states that is indeed the case. It seems pretty much everyone's getting money for something - meanwhile a diminishing portion of the population is paying tax to fund it all.

And so on.

In principle I agree with the idea that we have welfare for those in genuine need, that we conserve places of genuine high value, that violence is unacceptable and so on. No disagreement there whatsoever.

But it's all gone way too far. The masses are suffering, to the point that even just buying their own home is increasingly out of reach, meanwhile the elites prattle on that someone was offended by words, that there's something spoiling their view and so on.

Those outside the inner suburban media, political, academic, management and activist bubble have simply had enough. This day was always going to come, that sentiment has been rising for many years now, and it's not about Aboriginals. They're just the ones caught in the crossfire.

That's not really about First World versus Third World. In the First World, being able to have a roof over your head is generally taken for granted after all, that it's no longer a given has been the tipping point. Aboriginals might be doing it tough but they're not the only ones.

Assuming a genuine desire for improved circumstances, there really shouldn't be a conflict between Aboriginal people and mainstream Australia. They're not the problem and there's a lot in common there if we think about it. Both want a roof over their heads and neither has been at all well served by a city-centric political system that, apart from Kevin Rudd's relatively brief time as PM, has had the country run by a PM from Sydney or Melbourne constantly for more than 40 years now.

Hawke, Keating, Howard, Gillard, Abbott, Turnbull, Morrison and Albanese have one thing in common. They're all from Sydney or Melbourne electorates. That's a big part of the problem, that since federation we've had just one PM from each of WA and Tas, none from SA or NT, and even Queensland hasn't produced many in recent times, Rudd being the only one since the 1940's and his total time as PM was less than 3 years.

The whole system's far too centred on the big two cities and that explains an awful lot.....
 
Last edited:
Realistically, the Aborigines need to fix their own culture.

And no longer rely on immigrants to solve their problems.

This Yes/No is a clear statement.

The working public gives them enough in centrelink benefits.

How much can we give them! Plus sorry's & thanks to the gagagsgasgasga clans everywhere I go.

If they want to change their situation, they should go & take it.
 
And a properly managed government should not care about the colour of the skin (or a tribal self identification) to determine which help should go to a citizen in need.
That's the basis of proper non racist human rights.
Sadly, we already do the distinction, so yes Australia is racist in that it favours first nation already.
The voice intended to push the knife further in and was rejected by any sensible people
I have no doubt the push will carry on and the voice will be forced on us under another name sooner or later
In the EU, the Maastricht referendum was rejected in mass by the French electorate, the Irish, etc it was in place within a decade..
The elite do not like itwhen the people does not follow :
We are the "sans dent" (toothless) for Macron during the yellow vest riots, the Clinton deplorable..how dare we ...
 
I knew the voice was a crock of **** to extract more money.

"Explained: How Treaty will work in Queensland

The Queensland government is committed to forging ahead with its Path to Treaty legislation despite the crushing defeat for the Voice to parliament referendum.

The legislation was passed with bipartisan support during an extraordinary parliamentary sitting in Cairns in May.
But what does this mean?
The first stage of the Path to Treaty will be the truth-telling and healing inquiry.
The state government is currently finalising the structure of the inquiry with expectations committee members will be confirmed by the end of the year.
From then on, the major focus of the next three years will be the truth-telling and healing inquiry conducted by a five-member board, which will travel across the state to investigate the massacre of Indigenous people, the effect of the Stolen Generation and the impacts of colonisation on First Nations and Torres Strait Islander peoples in Queensland.

After the three years of the hearings, the results of the inquiry could lead to financial reparations, health reforms and curriculum changes by the state government as part of landmark treaty negotiations with Queensland’s First Nations groups.

Next year, the government will also set up the First Nations treaty institute with the framework for negotiating treaties.

When the laws were passed, then Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Partnerships Minister Craig Crawford said there was a possibility a hundred separate treaties could be negotiated, depending on how many Indigenous groups across the state come forward in the next three years.

Deals could be struck across areas like youth justice, housing, health and education, as well as a formal platform to change the names of geographic locations that are either considered insensitive or were previously known by another name for thousands of years.

Will my suburb name change without consultation?

The Queensland government says it regularly consults on updating place names and will continue to do so.

If place name changes are requested as part of a specific treaty negotiation, the usual process to undertake consultation on place name changes that already exists will be followed.
will my taxes increase to pay treaties?

The government says the state’s $300 million Path to Treaty Fund was established in 2021 as an investment in reconciliation and healing to ensure funding certainty and remove any impact on consolidated revenue.

Returns from the fund will be used to progress Queensland’s Path to Treaty, providing a secure funding source for treaty-making activities in Queensland.

Will school curriculums change the way colonisation of Australia is taught?

The Queensland government has said information gathered from the truth-telling and healing inquiry process will help inform the community and government of the history of colonisation and ongoing impacts.

It will also inform the First Nations Treaty Institute in its work towards readiness for treaty negotiations.

Material and information gathered from the inquiry process will also be a valuable resource for Queensland schools to support the teaching of a complete history of Queensland, particularly histories from an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander perspective.

Could I lose land that I own as part of this Treaty?

No. The Queensland government is definitive that this will not happen."


https://www.couriermail.com.au/news...k=ceef72fbd078754a0aa40ec037de2dd2-1697573389
 
Jacinta Nampijinpa Price, I hope that her political party can see her strength, intelligence and charisma.


 
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...