Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

The Voice

Jump to new
wayneL said:
Zzzzz....zzzz....zzzz

And you accuse others of political games @IFocus ?

Only certain indigenous voices count hey? Interestingly only those that agree with a certain view. No discussion, no debate. Dissenters are disregarded and accused of "politics".

What an @55.
Click to expand...


You have lost the plot its not what I said or intended go twist other peoples words FFS
 
Detail that was presented to cabinet

1673309557479.png


 
Who does Price speak for

I wonder who Senator Jacinta Price is referring to when she talks of “my people”.
She can’t mean the people I work for – 90 democratically elected Aboriginal men and women from the towns, remote communities and hundreds of tiny homelands of the southern half of the Northern Territory. People aged between 20 and 80, who are elected for three-year terms, meet three times a year out bush and who, for the past five years, have consistently expressed their strong support for the constitutionally enshrined voice to parliament the senator opposes.



Jacinta Price doesn’t speak for my people – and her stance shows why Australia needs the Indigenous voice | Indigenous voice to parliament | The Guardian

The ignorance expressed about the voice is only surpassed by the lack of knowledge about the rigorous process that led us to it
amp.theguardian.com amp.theguardian.com
 
IFocus said:
Who does Price speak for

I wonder who Senator Jacinta Price is referring to when she talks of “my people”.
She can’t mean the people I work for – 90 democratically elected Aboriginal men and women from the towns, remote communities and hundreds of tiny homelands of the southern half of the Northern Territory. People aged between 20 and 80, who are elected for three-year terms, meet three times a year out bush and who, for the past five years, have consistently expressed their strong support for the constitutionally enshrined voice to parliament the senator opposes.



Jacinta Price doesn’t speak for my people – and her stance shows why Australia needs the Indigenous voice | Indigenous voice to parliament | The Guardian

The ignorance expressed about the voice is only surpassed by the lack of knowledge about the rigorous process that led us to it
amp.theguardian.com amp.theguardian.com
Click to expand...
Once again the language as expressed in the article is not in the spirit of discussion or debate. We can see that it uses disparagement and ad homonym... Not to mention both gaslighting and astroturfing.

And as a sidebar, it's a bit rich Ken Wyatt talking about laziness when he did not answer any of the many emails I sent to his office, as my then local member, prior to the last election. In fact, he was pretty much AWOL throughout the campaign. His laziness cost his party his seat in my electorate.
 
Well if the information is out there, it shouldn't be hard for someone who is aware of what the 'voice' means, to address some of the points that @ Sean K posted.
I'm sure it would clear up a lot of the confusion many of us on the forum have.
To me it seems like the easiest way forward, if the information is out there, then all Albo has to do is present it so that the lay person can understand it.
Even if they only addressed some of the issues, I'm sure it would help the situation.

From Sean K post:

● 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?
 
I have mentioned and cited Anthony Dillon (indigenous acedemic) a couple of times already, above.

In this article he presents a pretty balanced look at what The Voice may mean if, and if it isn't passed, with some suggestions for both eventualities.

He is worth a follow honest social media if you're interested in reasonable discussion and debate.

 
The proposed [First Nations] Voice is a stalking horse on our parliamentary democracy. And it's just the first cab off the rank.
Next will come the:
- LGBTIQA -Voice to Parliament
- Green -Voice to Parliament
- Climate -Voice to Parliament

Importantly, they'll have two votes to your one. ..a de facto third chamber, Parliament will need their permission.

They will be run by privileged coteries, un-elected by the people, run by economically comfortable urban elites.
And all safely insulated from the consequences.

It's hard to believe that the Australian people could be so gullible, as to willingly accept such a transparent political scam. :eek::eek:
 
Logique2 said:
The proposed [First Nations] Voice is a stalking horse on our parliamentary democracy. And it's just the first cab off the rank.
Next will come the:
- LGBTIQA -Voice to Parliament
- Green -Voice to Parliament
- Climate -Voice to Parliament

Importantly, they'll have two votes to your one. ..a de facto third chamber, Parliament will need their permission.

They will be run by privileged coteries, un-elected by the people, run by economically comfortable urban elites.
And all safely insulated from the consequences.

It's hard to believe that the Australian people could be so gullible, as to willingly accept such a transparent political scam. :eek::eek:
Click to expand...
You have to admit it is a stroke of genius to propose it immediately after conditioning the population, to accept and do exactly what the Government tells them to without question and fear of fines, over the previous 18 months.
Absolute genius IMO, the majority will vote for it, just because the Government tells them to, that's the way it rolls ATM.;)
"This is good for you, don't ask questions just do it, trust us". Nothing wrong with that reasoning, is there?
Republic next, before things return to normal and the masses start to get back to independent thinking. The elites a have a once in a lifetime opportunity to take stage off the people and get the real control, el presidente.?
It will certainly be an interesting three years, coming up IMO. :xyxthumbs
 
The "Voice" is similar to our previous referendum for a Republic.
Most Australians still want a Republic, but apparently we have to agree on the precise detail, lest Party politics get in the way.
Similarly, most people recognise first Australians as those arriving tens of thousands of years ago.
Yet we have chosen not to recognise this fact in our Constitution.
Nor, apart from an election process which occasionally gets some first Australians elected to push Party lines, is there a mechanism for seriously listening to how they would prefer that their concerns are addressed.
The precise detail, or mechanics, of the Voice would always be the prerogative of prevailing Parliaments. So the question for those with adverse views is "if you are not a first Australian, how does the Voice detract from your rights and privileges?"
Voting against the Voice because you believe its every detail is a prerequisite is the mindset that prevents progress in every field of endeavour. So if the NO vote prevails then, like the push for a Republic, our hopes for something better will stagnate for decades to come.
 
rederob said:
The "Voice" is similar to our previous referendum for a Republic.
Most Australians still want a Republic, but apparently we have to agree on the precise detail, lest Party politics get in the way.
Similarly, most people recognise first Australians as those arriving tens of thousands of years ago.
Yet we have chosen not to recognise this fact in our Constitution.
Nor, apart from an election process which occasionally gets some first Australians elected to push Party lines, is there a mechanism for seriously listening to how they would prefer that their concerns are addressed.
The precise detail, or mechanics, of the Voice would always be the prerogative of prevailing Parliaments. So the question for those with adverse views is "if you are not a first Australian, how does the Voice detract from your rights and privileges?"
Voting against the Voice because you believe its every detail is a prerequisite is the mindset that prevents progress in every field of endeavour. So if the NO vote prevails then, like the push for a Republic, our hopes for something better will stagnate for decades to come.
Click to expand...
Greetings Rederob, good to know you are still alive. :)

"if you are not a first Australian, how does the Voice detract from your rights and privileges?"

We are yet to know, that's the problem. However in a democracy, groups should not have more rights than individuals. We are a country of individuals , if we choose to band together by race or religion that should not give us more rights than if we choose not to.
 
SirRumpole said:
Greetings Rederob, good to know you are still alive. :)

"if you are not a first Australian, how does the Voice detract from your rights and privileges?"

We are yet to know, that's the problem. However in a democracy, groups should not have more rights than individuals. We are a country of individuals , if we choose to band together by race or religion that should not give us more rights than if we choose not to.
Click to expand...
On the contrary!
Parliaments make decisions about rights.
The Voice has no "power" beyond the effect it has on decision makers.
This has been explained so many times yet clearly is not understood.
 
rederob said:
On the contrary!
Parliaments make decisions about rights.
The Voice has no "power" beyond the effect it has on decision makers.
This has been explained so many times yet clearly is not understood.
Click to expand...
The Oz constitution does not contain a bill of rights, but it does contain some limited rights protections.
The rights contained in the constitution are the right to vote (Section 41), the right to trial by jury (Section 80), freedom of religion (Section 116), protection against acquisition of property on unjust terms (Section 51), and prohibition on discrimination on the basis of state of residency (Section 117). The constitution also contains an implied right to freedom of political communication. S
state and federal laws that are inconsistent with rights provided by the constitution can be challenged in the High Court.

Australia also enjoys rights derived from common law, such as the right to a fair trial.


Until Australia has a legislated Bill of Rights, Parliament does not make decisions about rights, the high court does.
Mick
 
SirRumpole said:
So why is a referendum needed ?
Click to expand...

So the next conservative government cannot remove it, also confers status and recognition of the 1st people to settle Australia up to 60,000 years ago which currently doesn't exist.
 
IFocus said:
So the next conservative government cannot remove it, also confers status and recognition of the 1st people to settle Australia up to 60,000 years ago which currently doesn't exist.
Click to expand...

I have no problem with recognition, but I fear that The Voice will be a source of red tape that will result in holdups to normal processes and strangle democracy.

Just one example, a BMX track on Mt Panorama that would have benefitted the community was turned down because the local indigenous people did not like it. So how many amenities will the majority have to forgo to satisfy the few ?
 
SirRumpole said:
I have no problem with recognition, but I fear that The Voice will be a source of red tape that will result in holdups to normal processes and strangle democracy.

Just one example, a BMX track on Mt Panorama that would have benefitted the community was turned down because the local indigenous people did not like it. So how many amenities will the majority have to forgo to satisfy the few ?
Click to expand...

Rump again the voice wont have any powers other than advisory its up tp state, federal and councils to decide what happens same as now.
 
IFocus said:
Rump again the voice wont have any powers other than advisory its up tp state, federal and councils to decide what happens same as now.
Click to expand...

Oh yes, but can you imagine the fuss The Voice will make if they don't get their way ?

It will be the stolen generation all over again and how the white fella is disrespecting the indigenous people etc etc...
 
IFocus said:
Rump again the voice wont have any powers other than advisory its up tp state, federal and councils to decide what happens same as now.
Click to expand...
If that is the case, why not just have a Government funded indigenous lobby group, that has access to parliament?
Why change the constitution in such a way that if it's power and reach are decided after the referendum, it can't be changed?
Lots of questions and lots of warm feel good vagueness answers.
 

Similar threads

R
The American use of War Pretext Incidents
Replies
6
Views
9K
sptrawler
sptrawler
Top