The Voice

[rederob]

Have they taken a vote of their members ?

We only get the opinions of the hierarchy who like virtue signalling for commercial reasons.

More distraction.
Do you not understand how the agenda has been hijacked by people like you who refuse to understand what the referendum aims to achieve so have to find excuses for their voting intentions that are irrelevant?

 

[SirRumpole]

More distraction.
Do you not understand how the agenda has been hijacked by people like you who refuse to understand what the referendum aims to achieve so have to find excuses for their voting intentions that are irrelevant?

Well I'll just put this to you before I start ignoring your irrelevancies.

Why would Aboriginal people need special treatment in the Constitution unless they were inferior in some way ?

Do you think they are ?

 

[rederob]

Why would Aboriginal people need special treatment in the Constitution unless they were inferior in some way ?

That sums up you inability to understand the referendum question.
Not a word made sense.

 

[SirRumpole]

That sums up you inability to understand the referendum question.
Not a word made sense.

And your answer sums up your inability to comprehend a simple question, and a total inability to answer it.

 

[TimeISmoney]

It was signed by 300 of the same people who came up with Statement on behalf the rest of the mob who didn't get a look in. Caesar judging Caesar media driven event.

Someone previously made a point that there weren't any elders that were against the voice. Signatories signed on behalf of the elders because their names were printed on the statement, which was obviously against their will and false, is the way I see it.

The dishonesty in all of this is a lost opportunity to do some good, I'm sure most elders want what's best for their people.

 

[wayneL]

Well I'll just put this to you before I start ignoring your irrelevancies.

Why would Aboriginal people need special treatment in the Constitution unless they were inferior in some way ?

Do you think they are ?

Exactly. It's the "soft racism of low expectations".

We have seen Aboriginal people excel in various aspects of business/professions, academia and sport, as well as just living a good decent life like most people.

I'm all for helping those who find themselves in positions of genuine disadvantage (whether indigenous or not), but this proposal has not, can not, demonstrate how it does that.

 

[JohnDe]

No it's not. It's simply a plan to allow people the rights to representation that every citizen including indigenous already have.

And it will be entrenched in the Constitution for one group only.

By all means let anyone form a representative body, but its success should depend on results not be just a sinecure for some Canberra based bureaucrats.

 

[wayneL]

This is probably more properly something for the western Australia thread because it is Western Australian legislation.

However, it really does highlight two things.

1/ Just how much can be achieved by statutory legislation (without general consent by the way).

2/ just where a constitutional change could eventually end up.

As an owner of a small holding in the Swan Valley (5.6 acres), as July 1st, I will no longer be able to disturb the soil at a greater depth then 50cm.

This means that if I want to plant a reasonably sized sapling tree, dig a post hole, do any sort of levelling work, make a water jump for training eventing horses, repair my driveway etc etc, I will have to employ an Aboriginal consultant, under penalty of potentially tens of thousands of dollars and jail time.

It could even extend to something like pushing over a tree or even driving a steel picket in the ground.

Cashman's views seem pretty close to the money.

 

[SirRumpole]

This is probably more properly something for the western Australia thread because it is Western Australian legislation.

However, it really does highlight two things.

1/ Just how much can be achieved by statutory legislation (without general consent by the way).

2/ just where a constitutional change could eventually end up.

As an owner of a small holding in the Swan Valley (5.6 acres), as July 1st, I will no longer be able to disturb the soil at a greater depth then 50cm.

This means that if I want to plant a reasonably sized sapling tree, dig a post hole, do any sort of levelling work, make a water jump for training eventing horses, repair my driveway etc etc, I will have to employ an Aboriginal consultant, under penalty of potentially tens of thousands of dollars and jail time.

It could even extend to something like pushing over a tree or even driving a steel picket in the ground.

Cashman's views seem pretty close to the money.

Disturbing.

 

[macca]

Disturbing.

Yes, it is very disturbing, I think that this will be publicised by the No vote as an example of what can happen with the Voice.

I suggest that the virtue signallers in Canberra will be filthy that it has become law before they pushed the referendum through

 

[IFocus]

The Uluru statement was falsely signed by elders that never even signed it and the other half didn't know what they signed. Anyone that stands up to the yes mob gets verbally or physically assaulted like Jancida Price's grandmother, I've seen all the removed social media posts.
Australians have every bit to be alarmed at passing a referendum that they don't understand the full consequences of.


Numerous signatories of the Uluru Statement from the Heart were ‘surprised’ to see their names on the document that calls for an indigenous voice to parliament and ‘unhappy’ to be seen as endorsing the statement. In a trip to Uluru last week, Liberal senator and indigenous woman, Kerrynne Liddle, was told by numerous Central Australian indigenous leaders that the Uluru Statement from the Heart and the Voice to parliament that it called for were causing nothing but “trouble”.





.

If you were serious about understanding you would have gone to the land councils mentioned have wide spread support was and why from the very people who support the Voice.

 

[rederob]

And your answer sums up your inability to comprehend a simple question, and a total inability to answer it.

Your question has nothing to do with the referendum question, apart from raising issues that again are irrelevant and nonsensical.
You continue to show total ignorance of this topic.

From the outset Andersons claims are BS as the Voice would sit outside Parliament.
His next point about what powers the Voice would have is the same as mine. That is, it has no more power than you or I.
His point that the Voice might be detrimental only became the case when Dutton turned a bipartisan stance into a political ploy for his bolted on racist supporters - the ones who are happy to see systemic disadvantage continue.
Anderson's claims that the Uluru Statement from the Heart "are actually misleading and highly detrimental" is further BS as the constitutional change is spelled out clearly:

"We call for the establishment of a First Nations Voice enshrined in the Constitution."​

I won't go further as Anderson's mob in the previous Parliament proved how useless they were in Closing the Gap. The likes of Anderson have been the problem... white men who think they know what to do because they are elected to govern, but remain oblivious to the cultural diversity of first nations peoples and used broad brush policies to try to effect change, rather than seek local solutions.

What did Anderson not say?
Did he, for example, mention how his LNP colleagues in government and then opposition proposed to improve the Voice? No, because their silence has been deafening.
Did he forget that the Coalition's previous Minister for indigenous Affairs resigned in disgust?
Did he show how a continuation of the previous approach was the right path?
Did he offer anything substantive at all, putting aside his lies and blatantly misleading claims about the Uluru Statement from the Heart.

What he did was what every "no" proponent has done. Find excuses, lie and mislead, when otherwise not making nonsensical and irrelevant claims.

 

[IFocus]

Treaty eventually needs to come. Aboriginals can't just be left out on the fringes being thrown scraps.

Fact is that is exactly what will happen a treaty has no hope ever.

I think the way the Voice has been presented has failed everyone.
It being enshrined in the constitution wasn't the only option.
The Fact is, no one trusts white progressives due to their track record. It's abysmal. It's often a partial truth that ignores the bigger reality.
They need to be very clear about outcomes. This whole thing is not about aboriginals as a whole. But about another layer of political wankery being installed.

Actually it is about recognizing Aboriginals and have them as part of a process but reading here apparently its all about subterfuge ?

The Voice is not a product of progressives it’s actually from a large cross group in fact not aware of any so called progressives

 

[sptrawler]

This is probably more properly something for the western Australia thread because it is Western Australian legislation.

However, it really does highlight two things.

1/ Just how much can be achieved by statutory legislation (without general consent by the way).

2/ just where a constitutional change could eventually end up.

As an owner of a small holding in the Swan Valley (5.6 acres), as July 1st, I will no longer be able to disturb the soil at a greater depth then 50cm.

This means that if I want to plant a reasonably sized sapling tree, dig a post hole, do any sort of levelling work, make a water jump for training eventing horses, repair my driveway etc etc, I will have to employ an Aboriginal consultant, under penalty of potentially tens of thousands of dollars and jail time.

It could even extend to something like pushing over a tree or even driving a steel picket in the ground.

Cashman's views seem pretty close to the money.

That's interesting 50cm is a weird depth, a fence strainer post goes in deeper than that, so does that mean that fencing contractors will have to employ an aboriginal consultant.
Hopefully common sense prevails and the contactors, farmers, land owners only have to purchase a right to dig online, a bit like the authorisation to pass over aboriginal land, when driving the great central road from Laverton to Ularu.
I'm just pleased they allow us to drive on the road, but then again I suppose if we couldnt drive on it, we couldnt fix it, so that they can use it, maybe we should just tear it up and save everyone the trouble. Lol

Travel Through Aboriginal Land Permits » Shire of Ngaanyatjarraku

www.ngaanyatjarraku.wa.gov.au

Funny they dont have a voice, yet we have to pay to drive across a gazetted road, they don't have to apply to come into Perth.
Funny that, I had to pay taxes to put in the road and maintain the road and I have to aplly to the aboriginals to drive on it and they're marginalised.

Interesting times, we are becoming a bit weird generally, apparently the pommies swore at one of our batsmen I mean that just isn't on, as if we don't have enough on our plate now foreigners are swearing at us. Tut tut.

 

[wayneL]

Well, any fence post is usually minimum 60cm, so...hmmm

 

[sptrawler]

Well, any fence post is usually minimum 60cm, so...hmmm

A quick google on the phone brought this up, check it out and see if it fits the bill. No pun intended.

New fee system to help protect Aboriginal cultural heritage | Western Australian Government

A new fee system for proponents using the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage system has been released today.

www.wa.gov.au

Will the next step be, look to simlify matters, we will just make it a one of annual payment for landowners of more than 1100m2, sounds like the State Government gazumping the Feds again as they did with the EV mileage tax.
What a hoot Albo getting snookered by McGowan, clever move, the Feds may have thoughts of moving the indegenous costs onto the landowners and the States are beating them to it.

 

[TimeISmoney]

Fact is that is exactly what will happen a treaty has no hope ever.


Actually it is about recognizing Aboriginals and have them as part of a process but reading here apparently its all about subterfuge ?

The Voice is not a product of progressives it’s actually from a large cross group in fact not aware of any so called progressives

It's exactly what they said it is, everything to do with 'the voice' is still under the scrutiny of the Indigenous affairs minister, even other Indigenous delegates that oppose the Ularu statement will still be heard by the indigenous affairs minister, and their voice will hold just as much weight as any representative of the Ularu statement, and Linda Burney said this herself.

 

[sptrawler]

This is the aboriganal land permit, I was looking for, just in case anyone is thinking of travelling where the voice reaches.

Permits for Aboriginal lands

 

[StockyGuy]

Well, any fence post is usually minimum 60cm, so...hmmm

Maybe they'll ignore it cos it's not the Voice, per se; but I am hoping to be bemused by the resident leftists' spirited defence of that stuff you guys in WA have had foisted on you. Waiting to be told how it's all totally fair and reasonable, that we should have a heart and so on...

 

[moXJO]

Fact is that is exactly what will happen a treaty has no hope ever.


Actually it is about recognizing Aboriginals and have them as part of a process but reading here apparently its all about subterfuge ?

The Voice is not a product of progressives it’s actually from a large cross group in fact not aware of any so called progressives

Treaty will come.

As for the rest of it- I've seen this political fckery before. I know the exact type of grifters that get in. The "useful idiots" that encourage it. The wankers that then shamelessly extract $ from taxpayers from idiot grifts.
I know how far activists go. It doesn't stop here. My cousins were some of the most notorious in nz. As we speak they are trying to rename the country.

Like I said you have nfi. But your hearts in the right place.