Yet I can turn up to a number of free doctor's surgeries within 10 minutes driving, seven days a week, and be seen in a matter of hours at the very most. Perhaps that person in the other forum was prone to exaggeration?The people who pay for all of this with their taxes quickly explained to him that in a lot of cities it takes up to 12 - 14 days to see a GP.
More likely that person does not live in one of he major cities.Yet I can turn up to a number of free doctor's surgeries within 10 minutes driving, seven days a week, and be seen in a matter of hours at the very most. Perhaps that person in the other forum was prone to exaggeration?
Yet I can turn up to a number of free doctor's surgeries within 10 minutes driving, seven days a week, and be seen in a matter of hours at the very most. Perhaps that person in the other forum was prone to exaggeration?
You are very fortunate, I have no idea where my closest bulk biller is.
Even pensioners pay first round here and then get a partial rebate from Medicare
You're lucky. The hospital is a 8 hour (down from 12+ hours) wait and the doctors are booked out a week in advance. I don't even bother trying.Yet I can turn up to a number of free doctor's surgeries within 10 minutes driving, seven days a week, and be seen in a matter of hours at the very most. Perhaps that person in the other forum was prone to exaggeration?
First Camooweal, then the next town down the road, then the next.......Will many country towns shrink or cease to exist ?
In the past, decisions have been made by Councils to encourage tourists to stop over and spend money in the towns.
Many country small businesses rely very heavily on the seasonal flow of grey nomads during the season to supplement the quiet times. Without the annual flow of GN then the locals would not have the range of services available to them now.
I have been told by a bloke selling vanilla slices that over 60% of his annual t/o comes from GNs and this creates 4 jobs in a town of 2000 people.
BUT in a sign of things to come from Camooweal QLD we have this situation
<<The council said the site will be closed for six months to “protect cultural heritage”, with Mt Isa’s Deputy Mayor Phil Barwick telling the ABC the area has been “quite trampled on”.
The site is managed by the Myuma Group, which represents the traditional owners of the upper Georgina River region.>>
<<The move has not sat well with locals, with some speculating more closures will occur around the country with the introduction of the Indigenous Voice to Parliament. Yahoo News Australia has contacted Mt Isa City Council for more information on the closure.>>
Businesses worried about loss of tourism
The decision has rocked the small town of just 236 residents, with local businesses worried the closure will cause tourists to bypass Camooweal entirely in favour of other towns.
Backlash as popular Aussie spot shuns tourists: ‘Watch the town die!’
A decision made by council has locals in the tiny Queensland town fearful of the future. Read more.au.yahoo.com
Absolutely. The biggest disadvantage imo is disability and that can apply to all races or genders and it's good to see it's being fixed (hopefully).From the other side of the world but the underlying theme is very similar:
Personally I'm of the view that we should definitely assist those who are suffering genuine disadvantage but the criteria for doing so should be the disadvantage itself. Not skin colour, not gender, not height, religion, or what your parents did but simply the actual problem itself.
If the problem is that someone can't study at TAFE because the nearest TAFE running that course is 1000km away or the problem is they're unable to progress due to illiteracy then that's the problem we need to fix. We need to get them to the school or bring the school to them, we need to teach them to read and write, etc. What their skin looks like isn't the issue and shouldn't be the deciding factor in who gets help and who doesn't.
If you understood context you would have known this was a rhetorical question.No, you asked a question first "Is that what shapes your thinking?"
I have provided many detailed responses to those with a view to voting "no," and to also claim my responses are not rational is a bit rich. Unlike you, I do not play the man at almost every opportunity, and try to stick to the topic. It was not in any way apparent how you reason for moving from 50/50 to more "no" had any relevance to the Voice. However, if you want to explain how you believed it to be so, then please do.I choose not to answer someone that has no intention of rationally considering an opposing viewpoint.
Again playing the man and not on topic!You have made up your mind and keep circling back. Time is too precious to spend it on those that can't see past their own inflated ego.
In NZ we have "city tribes" (one in particular whose leadership is a lawyer) steamroll the smaller bush tribes for more power. Unfortunately for him our tribe are full of a-holes that have never bent to government ar5ekissers (yep that's why I'm an opinionated dck).
It's a mess though, as those that need to be heard are not. It just becomes another layer of the "haves".
My uncle who is the current tribe leadership was over here recently. I know he was speaking with aboriginal leaders on the way forward. He probably helped kick this off.
The problem with your idea is that it does not reflect systemic disadvantage. You seem reluctant to understand why those many metrics in Closing the Gap affect a specific group of people but not others, and are not being improved.Disadvantage can apply to a wide range of people. There are families whose breadwinner may have been struck down by illness, people who suddenly find themselves out of a job at an older age and unable to find another one, disadvantage caused by relationship breakdown etc.
They all need a "Voice". As smurf points out it's not what group you belong to , its the position you are in that matters.
This is about your rationale for voting.
You changed to 95% "no" on a matter that had absolutely nothing to do with the referendum.
Try to stay on topic and please don't try to play the man with me.
They all need a "Voice". As smurf points out it's not what group you belong to , it’s the position you are in that matters.
You could have added why you believed it was "an interesting discussion" from your link rather than giving me credit for your voting intentions.If you understood jest, you would have known my reply to you was a rhetorical question.
Your skill in discussion is so god that you have persuaded me 100% to vote NO. Thank you, I will now pass this onto all I know.
Absolutely. The biggest disadvantage imo is disability and that can apply to all races or genders and it's good to see it's being fixed (hopefully).
Disadvantage can apply to a wide range of people. There are families whose breadwinner may have been struck down by illness, people who suddenly find themselves out of a job at an older age and unable to find another one, disadvantage caused by relationship breakdown etc.
They all need a "Voice". As smurf points out it's not what group you belong to , its the position you are in that matters.
That's exactly what the Voice will be attempting. So why is Mundine advocating a "no" vote.I thought that Warren Mundine put it well on the 7:30 Report last night. Paraphrasing: 'Creating another level of bureaucracy is not going to improve indigenous life in the outback. What will improve lives is education and opportunity, which has been a failure of State governments. Creating another level that has a say on native lands will reduce or stop aboriginal people having a chance.'
Given Mundine already stated he thought few indigenous knew what the Voice was about, he could not also claim that the Voice could not help them. Mundine does not understanding his own contradictory positions. Furthermore, Mundine is only expressing a personal belief, and it has nothing to do with the operation of the Voice.Warren explained that in his business he meets thousands of indigenous people, and few think that the Voice is going to help them. Warren believes that the Voice will be another level of restriction for growth and opportunity for indigenous people to make a successful life like he has.
Again, this is an excuse. The issue of race is inherent to the Constitution in terms of recognition. To propose it as a reason for voting against recognition is not logical!I now agree with his comment that the Yes side is creating a race-based argument and causing a split within Australia.
While that is your view or sense, it is not what the referendum question is about.At first, I didn't but seeing how some reporters and people hiding behind usernames on forums are using guilt as a tool, as well as other references like 'other nations will not respect Australia, overseas business will avoid Australia. I am seeing the split occur.
None of this addresses culture and or its inclusion the gap report talks to the levels of disadvantage not experienced by any other group in Australia
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?