The Voice

[IFocus]

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.

Come on SP FFS the parliament will decide how and who which bit did you miss?

This can be changed by any government.

It been repeated constantly that it is an advisory body to parliament.

 

[sptrawler]

Come on SP FFS the parliament will decide how and who which bit did you miss?

This can be changed by any government.

It been repeated constantly that it is an advisory body to parliament.

Well then why can't it just be a section of the public service and or a Government funded lobby group, why does it need a constitutional change? By the way your the one who stated "So the next conservative Government can't remove it", so I don't understand what the FFS is about.

 

[wayneL]

Come on SP FFS the parliament will decide how and who which bit did you miss?

This can be changed by any government.

It been repeated constantly that it is an advisory body to parliament.

So, the government of the day can choose to take such advice or not.

How is this any different to now, apart from yet another quango and group of highly paid elites, completely out if touch and unconcerned about the people on the regions and their issues?

 

[sptrawler]

So, the government of the day can choose to take such advise or not.

How is this any different to now, apart from yet another quango and group of highly paid elites, completely out if touch and unconcerned about the people on the regions and their issues?

One would think that a constitutional recognition of original ownership, gives grounds for legal leverage of some sort, well that's my guess.
Maybe if it was debated in an open public forum, it would alay a lot of the speculation and public concerns.

 

[SirRumpole]

One would think that a constitutional recognition of original ownership, gives grounds for legal leverage of some sort, well that's my guess.
Maybe if it was debated in an open public forum, it would alay a lot of the speculation and public concerns.

There a difference between "Occupation" and "ownership ?

I think we can acknowledge occupation without legal consequences but ownership is a different matter.

 

[sptrawler]

There a difference between "Occupation" and "ownership ?

I think we can acknowledge occupation without legal consequences but ownership is a different matter.

It just seems there is a veil of secrecy about the whole thing, why not just have an open discussion about it, we are supposed to be inclusive and accepting. Well then why isn't if being presented in an inclusive and open manner, just weird IMO.
Shouting everyone down that asks questions about it, just heightens the public anxiety IMO.
I guess they know what they're doing, time will tell.

 

[SirRumpole]

It just seems there is a veil of secrecy about the whole thing, why not just have an open discussion about it, we are supposed to be inclusive and accepting. Well then why isn't if being presented in an inclusive and open manner, just weird IMO.

Yes, and that sort of secrecy may well kill it in the end, same as the Republic.

 

[sptrawler]

Yes, and that sort of secrecy may well kill it in the end, same as the Republic.

Well it is hard for people to feel confident, that they know what they are voting for, and if they don't feel confident in their decision, they tend to leave things as they are.
The gay marriage vote was easy, it was explained well and the lay person felt comfortable voting for it, hopefully the same happens with this.

 

[rederob]

If you vote AGAINST a Voice and you are not first nation then you are effectively voting for the status quo.
That is, you want first nation policies to be dictated, rather than collaborative.
It's really that simple.
All of Dutton's questions have been addressed in many hundreds of pages about the Voice and all will ultimately be decided by Parliament. But that's about mechanics and NOT purpose.
Reading comments in this thread is exemplary of only seeing trees when we need a forest.

 

[SirRumpole]

If you vote AGAINST a Voice and you are not first nation then you are effectively voting for the status quo.
That is, you want first nation policies to be dictated, rather than collaborative.
It's really that simple.
All of Dutton's questions have been addressed in many hundreds of pages about the Voice and all will ultimately be decided by Parliament. But that's about mechanics and NOT purpose.
Reading comments in this thread is exemplary of only seeing trees when we need a forest.

Red, the Parliament can seek the input of Aboriginal communities anytime they want, they shouldn't need to be told to do it, as they can .
invite input from any group impacted by legislation.

Why should one group have the Constitutional right to be consulted when others don't ?

 

[sptrawler]

Most people I talk to in passing, just don't have any idea what it actually is, so whether it is right or wrong or nothing, a gesture of respect or an acknowledgement doesn't come into it.
As I've said if people aren't confident, they tend to stick with the status quo, it is just human nature.
It would be a shame if it is defeated, just through lack of explanation, I'm at a loss as to why it isn't being thoroughly explained, as was done with the gay marriage issue.
There may be a reason, but as I've said if it looks as though it isn't being open and inclusive, people will tend to be wary of it.

 

[IFocus]

Red, the Parliament can seek the input of Aboriginal communities anytime they want, they shouldn't need to be told to do it, as they can .
invite input from any group impacted by legislation.

Why should one group have the Constitutional right to be consulted when others don't ?

But they don't, each government turns up with a paternalist ideological view or simply ignore the minister like the Morrison Government.

Ken Wyatt took all of the Voice details to cabinet x 2 and yet none of the Coalition know anything about it (their words).


Why should they get it, the Gap report is a pretty good start followed by the fact they were here 1st and yet there is nothing in the constitution or any of Australia's symbol's (Oz flag etc) that reflects that.

 

[wayneL]

they were here 1st

So what? There are first peoples all over the planet, often displaced and/or overwhelmed by others.

and yet there is nothing in the constitution or any of Australia's symbol's (Oz flag etc) that reflects that.

St George, whose symbol appears on the English flag, was from what is now Turkey. Where is the symbolism of true Britons? Where is my mention in the English constitution as one of the first peoples of that country?

Incidentally, the Aboriginal and TSI flags fly alongside the Australian national flag almost everywhere, especially gummint buildings.

 

[InsvestoBoy]

At the moment I think we are being asked to vote on an "ideal" with the details being filled in later. I'm not sure that is acceptable to the majority of the population.

Largely because the majority of the population is woefully uneducated about our constitutional law and stupid enough to listen to idiots in lieu of that education.

Perhaps taking some time to listen to an expert in the topic is a good place to start.

Parliament, not the devil, should control the detail on the Voice

It does not make sense to argue over the detail of a proposal in advance of a referendum, just as it makes no sense to put that detail into the constitution.

www.smh.com.au

 

[sptrawler]

Largely because the majority of the population is woefully uneducated about our constitutional law and stupid enough to listen to idiots in lieu of that education.

Perhaps taking some time to listen to an expert in the topic is a good place to start.

Parliament, not the devil, should control the detail on the Voice

It does not make sense to argue over the detail of a proposal in advance of a referendum, just as it makes no sense to put that detail into the constitution.

www.smh.com.au

The best explanation I've seen so far.

 

[InsvestoBoy]

The best explanation I've seen so far.

Unlike the majority of the population, the Opposition and those in the media spouting the "filling in the details later" talking point know this. They know what Prof Twomey is saying, they do not need it explained to them in a SMH article. It's a straw man they created.

 

[sptrawler]

Unlike the majority of the population, the Opposition and those in the media spouting the "filling in the details later" talking point know this. They know what Prof Twomey is saying, they do not need it explained to them in a SMH article. It's a straw man they created.

Also by allowing confusion to exist, the Govt can claim they presented the referendum, therefore if it fails it isnt their fault and if it is passes they claim credit.
No lose situation.
I would rather they presented it, as per your post, it is short and to the point.
Strange they havent, as yet.

 

[InsvestoBoy]

Also by allowing confusion to exist, the Govt can claim they presented the referendum, therefore if it fails it isnt their fault and if it is passes they claim credit.
No lose situation.

This is too dumb to retort.

I would rather they presented it, as per your post, it is short and to the point.

That is how they've been presenting it all along, every single time those talking points are trotted out. If you haven't been hearing it, perhaps you should examine where you get your information.

Here's one example I googled in about 3 seconds.

Television interview - Sunrise

EDWINA BARTHOLOMEW, HOST: The Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese, joins us live now from the Woodford Folk Festival where he slept in a shipping container overnight, we look forward to hearing more about that. Thank you so much for joining us this morning, Prime Minister. ANTHONY ALBANESE, PRIME...

www.pm.gov.au

Strange they havent, as yet.

Do you feel it's strange to not hear anything when you stick your fingers in your ears?

 

[sptrawler]

This is too dumb to retort.



That is how they've been presenting it all along. If you haven't been hearing it, perhaps you should examine where you get your information.

Here's one example I googled in about 3 seconds.

Television interview - Sunrise

EDWINA BARTHOLOMEW, HOST: The Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese, joins us live now from the Woodford Folk Festival where he slept in a shipping container overnight, we look forward to hearing more about that. Thank you so much for joining us this morning, Prime Minister. ANTHONY ALBANESE, PRIME...

www.pm.gov.au

Do you feel it's strange to not hear anything when you stick your fingers in your ears?

I'm just a pleb, who is retired and struggling along, being self funded and living on my wits.
I dont have a need to wallow in my brilliance, just trying to muddle along, through the later part of my life. Lol
How is everything working out for you?
Going by your interpersonal skills, I assume you work on your own, or for the ATO. Lol

 

[SirRumpole]

Another example of what The Voice could do to needed development.

Fears pumped hydro dam will 'take away identity' of culturally significant mountain

Wiradjuri people around Lithgow in New South Wales are concerned about plans for a 40-metre-high concrete reservoir on top of a mountain that holds great importance to them.

www.abc.net.au