Sean K
Moderator
- Joined
- 21 April 2006
- Posts
- 22,277
- Reactions
- 11,525
I think she has formed the Nats position on this, not the other way round.
Couldn't disagree more about Price being sensible her position is total political BS aligned with the Nats haven't heard Dillions take.
I think she has formed the Nats position on this, not the other way round.
Peter Dutton has written an open letter to the PM released today asking some specific questions:
● Who will be eligible to serve on the body?
● What are the prerequisites for nomination?
● Will the Government clarify the definition of aboriginality to determine who can serve on the body?
● How will members be elected, chosen or appointed?
● How many people will make up the body?
● How much will it cost taxpayers annually?
● What are its functions and powers?
● Is it purely advisory, or will it have decision-making capabilities?
● Who will oversee the body and ensure it is accountable?
● If needed, can the body be dissolved and reconstituted in extraordinary circumstances?
● How will the Government ensure that the body includes those who still need to get a platform in Australian public life?
● How will it interact with the Closing the Gap process?
● Will the Government rule out using the Voice to negotiate any national treaty?
● Will the Government commit to Local and Regional Voices, as recommended in the report on the co-design process led by Tom Calma and Marcia Langton?
● If not, how will it effectively address the real issues that impact people's lives daily on the ground in the community?
Sean, from Langtons article
"The key gripe of Peter Dutton and his shadow minister for Indigenous Australians, Julian Leeser, is that “no detail” has been provided about the Voice – what it would do, who its members would be, how they would be appointed, how much they would be paid. What the opponents mean is that they will seek to deceive the public into believing that there is “no detail”, ignoring at least three reports on the matter running to hundreds of pages, including the 272-page “Indigenous Voice Co-design Process” final report, which Professor Tom Calma and I led; the 183-page “Final Report of the Referendum Council”; and the 264-page report from the joint select committee on constitutional recognition relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples, led by Senator Patrick Dodson and Leeser himself. It would be unfair, and probably un-Australian, to suggest that Dutton should have read these reports, and equally unfair, and probably un-Australian, to expect that Leeser could remember the detail of his own report to parliament."
Thanks for that, I haven't read those reports, but will try to track them all down. Since she's raised them as the 'detail' I assume they answer those questions Dutton has asked. I doubt the one about what defines an Aboriginal will be in there though.
The thing is, in typical leftist fashion, Price, Mundine et al have their views discarded simply because of their political affiliation.
The central question remains: How will this, just like every other scheme over the decades, not end up being a gravy train train for the elites such as Langdon, with no real benefit for the people.
...because that's how it's shaping up.
Nothing to with leftard views blah blah Price is just straight out wrong and political, as for gravy train Price and her family have long been on board.
"Joining Craven is Nationals leader David Littleproud and Celtic–Warlpiri Senator Jacinta Price. Price falsely claims the Voice is a “new governance structure” that will be “placed with some sort of priority over our current Westminster system”. This is nonsense and as a new senator she might wish to be briefed on the committee system already established, to which a Voice would likely make reports."
Sean, from Langtons article
the 272-page “Indigenous Voice Co-design Process” final report, which Professor Tom Calma and I led;
Ah mullokintyre It is with great sadness that I have to once again announce that the formidable chap/lady Common Sense is again on a unpaid leave of absence. It is a real pity he/she does not hold a seat in parliament !!!!!!!!!!I am still to be given a cogent reason why we need to alter the constitution before the proposed legislation.
There is absolutely nothing stopping all the people in Parliament who want The Voice from tabling legislation and having it passed or failed in the parliament. It does NOT need constitutional change.
Then, having seen what it does, then put up the amendments to the constitution as a referendum after people have seen it in action.
It will immediately take away the argument that we don't know enough about the details of the legislation before we agree to it.
Or is that just a bit to sensible for the idealogues?
Mick
Not wanting to seem pedantic, as I'm not bothered either way about the 'voice', but as can be seen by articles written in publications that are very pro left, they seem to concur on the lack of detail.Sean, from Langtons article
"The key gripe of Peter Dutton and his shadow minister for Indigenous Australians, Julian Leeser, is that “no detail” has been provided about the Voice – what it would do, who its members would be, how they would be appointed, how much they would be paid. What the opponents mean is that they will seek to deceive the public into believing that there is “no detail”, ignoring at least three reports on the matter running to hundreds of pages, including the 272-page “Indigenous Voice Co-design Process” final report, which Professor Tom Calma and I led; the 183-page “Final Report of the Referendum Council”; and the 264-page report from the joint select committee on constitutional recognition relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples, led by Senator Patrick Dodson and Leeser himself. It would be unfair, and probably un-Australian, to suggest that Dutton should have read these reports, and equally unfair, and probably un-Australian, to expect that Leeser could remember the detail of his own report to parliament."
As a wise man once said "if you don't understand it, don't vote for it".Not wanting to seem pedantic, as I'm not bothered either way about the 'voice', but as can be seen by articles written in publications that are very pro left, they seem to concur on the lack of detail.
I find it bemusing that you say the information is already out there, when political journalists appear to contradict that statement.
From the introduction:Don’t underestimate the people advising Albanese on the Voice
While some criticism about a “lack of detail” about the Voice is valid, we should be looking at who are the loudest critics of the proposal.www.smh.com.au
There has been much made of the Albanese government for its failure to provide enough detail about its proposed Voice to Parliament, but the strategy is clear.
While some criticism is valid, we should look at those who are the loudest critics of this “lack of detail”. They are either opponents of the Voice or people who would benefit politically from its demise.
There is a reason why the ‘No’ side wants more detail released now, and the ‘Yes’ side is holding fire. Both sides are acutely aware of the lessons of the 1999 republic referendum.
In that debate, the ‘No’ side benefited each time more detail was released. It succeeded in turning the debate from a yes or no about a republic to a debate about the best model for a republic. Many Australians who were supportive of a republic eventually voted against the proposed model and the ‘No’ vote won.
This is why Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, Indigenous Australians Minister Linda Burney and the working group will leave many of the details around the Voice model for parliament to decide after the public vote.
I've been reading through this and there is a lot of background information and detail to wade through. I'm only up to about page 30, but one thing I've noticed so far is that the report provides a lot of ideas, guidance and options, but it's not really THE plan. It seems like we are just required to vote on something that might look like X but it could end up being Y. For eg, who the regional voices are, how many are voted into the national voice by the regions, how they are chosen, is all very loose and could end up being anything. I haven't got to the bit about how it all is finally put together in concrete yet, but I'm guessing that occurs in Parliament after we approve the Voice in principal but not the actual detail. Anyway, 240 pages to go....
I am still to be given a cogent reason why we need to alter the constitution before the proposed legislation.
There is absolutely nothing stopping all the people in Parliament who want The Voice from tabling legislation and having it passed or failed in the parliament. It does NOT need constitutional change.
Yep, thats the way to prove a point.Anyone who disagrees is cuturally indifferent or ignorant.Ironically it wont have any affect on the people who will vote against it which I note on this site any way is largely cultural indifference / ignorance.
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?