The Voice

[rederob]

The relevance of my various other examples is simply that's the reason I and so many are wary of the Voice in the first place.

They are NOT relevant.
How does giving advice for better policies become a matter anyone should be concerned about, or "wary" in your words? You have not explained the sense to that and fallen yet again into the same fallacious arguments as previous.

The most important pre-requisite to any major reform in Australia, on any matter, is to first rebuild the public's confidence in government itself.

You should know that the Voice is significantly about a lack of trust in government. It was developed on a bipartisan basis. Support only fell away after Dutton again showed how little he cares about indigenous issues and turned the referendum into a political affair.

 

[rederob]

I don't how it will be organised they haven't told us, we are supposed to take it on faith.

Again the politicians say "trust us". We keep on falling for that line.

More mud throwing, lies and distraction, because that's all the "no" camp is capable of.

 

[JohnDe]

"I know that I know nothing"

“If you don’t know, vote No.”

 

[SirRumpole]

More mud throwing, lies and distraction, because that's all the "no" camp is capable of.

So exactly what will be the Voice's powers, composition and procedures ?

 

[JohnDe]

From today’s AFR -

 

[rederob]

So exactly what will be the Voice's powers, composition and procedures ?

You should try to learn about the Voice instead of asking questions all the time that make you look ignorant.
Every point you made has been many time answered in this thread.

If you were fair dinkum instead of a closet racist you would be looking at what the referendum can do to recognise our first nations peoples and move them to an equal footing with non-indigenous in all those areas identified where they suffer disadvantage. Instead your intent is to make this more about you while creating nonsensical distractions.

 

[SirRumpole]

You should try to learn about the Voice instead of asking questions all the time that make you look ignorant.
Every point you made has been many time answered in this thread.

If you were fair dinkum instead of a closet racist you would be looking at what the referendum can do to recognise our first nations peoples and move them to an equal footing with non-indigenous in all those areas identified where they suffer disadvantage. Instead your intent is to make this more about you while creating nonsensical distractions.

Blah, blah, blah.

The point is we are being asked to enshrine a permanent body in the Constitution with knowing the funding details, who will elect it , how it will operate or anything else about it .

Not good enough.

 

[rederob]

The point is we are being asked to enshrine a permanent body in the Constitution with knowing the funding details, who will elect it , how it will operate or anything else about it .

You refuse to learn about the Voice and continue with your distractions.
Why can't you tell us exactly what is wrong with a body that can provide advice that has a high probability of reducing the high funding costs associated with disadvantage, instead of indulging in closet racism.

 

[SirRumpole]

You refuse to learn about the Voice and continue with your distractions.
Why can't you tell us exactly what is wrong with a body that can provide advice that has a high probability of reducing the high funding costs associated with disadvantage, instead of indulging in closet racism.

I believe I've made my objections clear.

As you have pointed out, we can all now give advice to government, we don't need a Constitutionally permanent and expensive body to do for one group what everyone including indigenous people can already do.

The fact that there is a gap can be due to many reasons including cultural rejection of services provided to aboriginal people.

Billions have already been spent on indigenous welfare, I suggest finding out where the money went and why it hasn't worked before approving any claims for more like the Voice is likely to recommend.

 

[JohnDe]

I believe I've made my objections clear.

As you have pointed out, we can all now give advice to government, we don't need a Constitutionally permanent and expensive body to do for one group what everyone including indigenous people can already do.

The fact that there is a gap can be due to many reasons including cultural rejection of services provided to aboriginal people.

Billions have already been spent on indigenous welfare, I suggest finding out where the money went and why it hasn't worked before approving any claims for more like the Voice is likely to recommend.

Jacinta explains it well -

 

[rederob]

I believe I've made my objections clear.

Yep, closet racist.

The fact that there is a gap can be due to many reasons including cultural rejection of services provided to aboriginal people.

No, it's ignorance on your part as your points are not accepted by any person who has taken the time to read on this issue.

Billions have already been spent on indigenous welfare, I suggest finding out where the money went and why it hasn't worked before approving any claims for more like the Voice is likely to recommend.

You will invent any excuse to retain the systemic disadvantage of indigenous people.
Worse, you cannot work out the effect of better policies in terms of reducing total spend and closing the gap.

 

[rederob]

Jacinta explains it well -

How about you explain why Jacinta could not answer the reporter's questions on the Voice.

 

[JohnDe]

"...it's very hard to define what it is..."

 

[sptrawler]

How about you explain why Jacinta could not answer the reporter's questions on the Voice.

What it did show Rob, if you actually watched it, was that the reporter had to constantly look at her notes and even then couldn't get things right.
She was just as confused as everyone on here is.
To quote the reporter at the 4.48 point:
"if the majority of indigenous people as was polled at the beggining of the year, or at least many"

Then at the 6.45 point:
"The voice may make legislation, UH representation" ?

The reporter spent nearly the whole interview looking down and stumbling through her narrative, whereas Price didn't look down once. It showed how little the reported understood the topic, which is indicative of most people.

 

[TimeISmoney]

Blah, blah, blah.

The point is we are being asked to enshrine a permanent body in the Constitution with knowing the funding details, who will elect it , how it will operate or anything else about it .

Not good enough.

I'll save everyone a lot of guesses, they'll use govt funding to challenge the crown over sovereignty, then the whole of Australia will have to pay extra taxes for a minority group that doesn't want to help itself and lives in the past.

 

[sptrawler]

I'll save everyone a lot of guesses, they'll use govt funding to challenge the crown over sovereignty, then the whole of Australia will have to pay extra taxes for a minority group that doesn't want to help itself and lives in the past.

And with it being in the constitution, it means the High Court would have to interpret and decide it, interesting times.

The functions of the High Court are to interpret and apply the law of Australia; to decide cases of special federal significance including challenges to the constitutional validity of laws and to hear appeals, by special leave, from Federal, State and Territory courts

 

[rederob]

What it did show Rob, if you actually watched it, was that the reporter had to constantly look at her notes and even then couldn't get things right.
She was just as confused as everyone on here is.
To quote the reporter at the 4.48 point:
"if the majority of indigenous people as was polled at the beggining of the year, or at least many"

Then at the 6.45 point:
"The voice may make legislation, UH representation" ?

The reporter spent nearly the whole interview looking down and stumbling through her narrative, whereas Price didn't look down once. It showed how little the reported understood the topic, which is indicative of most people.

The problem with your post is that it says nothing about Price's inability to answer questions on the Voice that suggested a "no" vote was a good idea!
You need to stop bashing the media and instead look at the substantive content.

 

[rederob]

I'll save everyone a lot of guesses, they'll use govt funding to challenge the crown over sovereignty, then the whole of Australia will have to pay extra taxes for a minority group that doesn't want to help itself and lives in the past.

I can donate to your psyche appointment if you like.
FYI courts can only decide upon laws, and "sovereignty" is a concept, not a law.

You should join @SirRumpole in the closet. Just ask @JohnDe for the keys.

 

[JohnDe]

And with it being in the constitution, it means the High Court would have to interpret and decide it, interesting times.

The functions of the High Court are to interpret and apply the law of Australia; to decide cases of special federal significance including challenges to the constitutional validity of laws and to hear appeals, by special leave, from Federal, State and Territory courts

Yes, it does look like a lot of work for the courts & lawyers, given that the Yes side can only yell derogatory abuse at everyone. Sort of shows how sad their understanding is.

 

[wayneL]

And with it being in the constitution, it means the High Court would have to interpret and decide it, interesting times.

The functions of the High Court are to interpret and apply the law of Australia; to decide cases of special federal significance including challenges to the constitutional validity of laws and to hear appeals, by special leave, from Federal, State and Territory courts

As I said a few pages back, one of my clients husband is a barrister and it is his opinion it would be a lawyers bonanza and tie up the high court ad infinitum.