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

The Voice

Just to add to this, I looked the other day at how many Australians are living under the poverty line and the figure was around 3 million. Now considering there are 1 million indigenous and not all are living under the poverty line what does this say about 3% of selfish Australians wanting special treatment to bridge the gap?

https://www.missionaustralia.com.au/what-we-do/ending-homelessness/what-is-poverty-and-does-it-exist-in-australia#:~:text=Does poverty exist in Australia,poverty line, including 761,000 children.
 
It was written by white conservative's so no power was given, yet you and others think otherwise ?

I'm fascinated.

Who actually wrote this?

Chapter IX Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples

129 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice


In recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia:

  1. There shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice;
  2. The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice may make representations to the Parliament and the Executive Government of the Commonwealth on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples;
  3. The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, 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.
 
And nowhere does it state that it's an advisory (only) body.
 


Your fu(king kidding... surely?
 
The copium is strong, in this thread.

....and it will be hard to move forward throughout the mountains of salt...

...just sayin'.
 
I think the 'make representations' words are the 'advisory only' bit, but it's very loose language. One of the reasons they failed to sell it.
'Representation' and 'advisory' have 2 different meanings, the latter is what they tried to sell to everyone in the mainstream media but it's funny how it wasn't stated in the constitutional changes. There's no doubt that if they used the word 'advisory' in the documentation to change the constitution then it would hold as they had no interest in anything other than giving advice, the devil is in the detail.
 

Yes, such a simple tweak might have made a difference. From my understanding, the constitutional lawyers recognised this and advised the government to change the wording, but the architechs said no. Albo just backed the Uluru crowd. They had an agenda and he didn't get it. Maybe he underestimated Langton and Mayo, et al? Marxists are cunning beasts after all.

There were a couple of other last minute things that might have defeated this.

1. Albo saying he had not read the Uluru Statement, IN FULL. 'Why would I?'
2. Ray Martin. I think that clip destroyed any chance for the Yes mob.
 

 
That document really is a pathetic petulant tantrum. The yessers keep sowing division like this making it hard to get anywhere on this issue, rapidly destroying any goodwill.

Really dumb

Talk about misreading the room!
 
The Lefties heads will explode by me putting this clip up, but .


Monday afternoon, ABC Radio National discussed this with an indigenous leader, he was asked why the document was not signed and who the author or authors are. The interviewer was berated for asking, made it sound like some sort of sacrilegious travesty was being committed for asking, and he should know better. I can't find the program on ABC Listen
 
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...