The Voice

[TimeISmoney]

My son came up from Collie this morning to bring one of the grandkids for the school holidays, I casually asked him how people are taking the 'Voice' and the new aboriginal heritage news, he said in the works lunchroom everyone is going ballistic.
So with Collie being a really 100% strong Labor seat, that's an interesting reaction, it may backfire on Labor a lot worse than they expect.
Time will tell, maybe everyone will settle down, maybe they wont, the 'voice' is probably going to be a good indicator of how Albo is travelling.

Labor is done for, they won't even have the back of the door hit them on the way out in Qld. Many of the facebook sites I've seen usually filter out the bigotry but since the announcement of the Fraser Island name change and added native land titles, it's just been let run rampant which is something I've never seen in my whole life. Jacinta Price was 100% right, all this stuff is going to do is make a larger division between groups.

 

[rederob]

I don't think it's clear that non indigenous people will not be affected by the Voice.

Never in this thread have you done other than distract, obfuscate or just dribble on with nonsense.
Tell us all how any policy targeted at indigenous benefit affects non-indigenous people?

If the WA legislation on aboriginal heritage can be accepted by a virtue signalling government then who knows how far this sort of idea will spread, and landholders may be deprived of the beneficial use of their own property.

That has zip to do with the Voice.
Your comments are a case study on drivel.

 

[JohnDe]

"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character." Martin Luther King, Jr.

 

[mullokintyre]

This is typical of the problems with the voice debate.
white women saying that an indigenous women is spreading disinformation when that indigenous person says she is speaking for all Aborignal people in voting no. And of course said white woman knows that over 80% of Aborignal people are voting yes.
Yea, that seems pretty right.
Mick

 

[farmerge]

This is typical of the problems with the voice debate.
white women saying that an indigenous women is spreading disinformation when that indigenous person says she is speaking for all Aborignal people in voting no. And of course said white woman knows that over 80% of Aborignal people are voting yes.
Yea, that seems pretty right.
Mick
View attachment 159013

Gee this woman has been busy asking evering 1st person in the country their voting preference.
Can she tell me the winning Lotto Numbers for next Thursday please. By PM only of course.

 

[SirRumpole]

Tell us all how any policy targeted at indigenous benefit affects non-indigenous people?

It's usually the non indigenous taxpayers that have to pay for it.

 

[farmerge]

It's usually the non indigenous taxpayers that have to pay for it.

Sir R and I would assume we would be paying through the nose

 

[rederob]

It's usually the non indigenous taxpayers that have to pay for it.

So you cannot explain how your claim was true, given policies for betterment actually reduce taxpayer spend.

Did you know that in 2021-22, Federal and State governments provided a total of $11.6 billion worth of spending and tax breaks to assist fossil fuel industries? These industry sectors face no disadvantage whatsoever and merely prop up profits.
Compare that with the 2023 Budget which invests $1.9 billion over 5 years from 2022–23 to deliver sustained, practical actions to improve the lives and economic opportunities of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people towards Closing the Gap.

 

[JohnDe]

This is typical of the problems with the voice debate.
white women saying that an indigenous women is spreading disinformation when that indigenous person says she is speaking for all Aborignal people in voting no. And of course said white woman knows that over 80% of Aborignal people are voting yes.
Yea, that seems pretty right.
Mick
View attachment 159013

Looks like the PM is under a bit of pressure on similar claims -

The Coffs Harbour local radio host had prompted the response after interrogating the PM at length about claims he made that “up to 90 per cent of First Nations people” support the voice. A feisty exchange ensued after Poole expressed scepticism about the PM’s 90 per cent number​

​

But Albanese became audibly annoyed when the ABC host observed there was confusion among the Australian public looking for “Indigenous leadership on the referendum”.​

Anthony Albanese lashes the media over voice coverage

Last week, we noted that Ten’s progressive panel show The Project had unexpectedly turned its blowtorch on a surprised Anthony Albanese in an interview, over the lack of specifics he had provided on the voice to parliament.

Now it’s the ABC’s turn. Aunty’s Coffs Coast breakfast host Fiona Poole hit a raw nerve with Albanese – amid declining opinion polls in favour of the ‘yes’ vote – in an interview on Tuesday, with the PM at one point claiming that the media had a “responsibility” for failing to properly scrutinise the “no” case.

The Coffs Harbour local radio host had prompted the response after interrogating the PM at length about claims he made that “up to 90 per cent of First Nations people” support the voice. A feisty exchange ensued after Poole expressed scepticism about the PM’s 90 per cent number:

Poole: “Where do you get that figure from?”

Albanese: “From all of the polling that’s been done of First Nations people.”

Poole: “So what, do you go into remote communities and ask everybody?”

Albanese: “First Nations People have done that. There has been polling that showed the lowest figure that I’ve seen of polling among First Nations People is above 80 per cent. And what we, the case for …”

At this point, Poole interjected to directly take issue with the PM’s numbers, claiming her anecdotal evidence from the Coffs area suggested a very different level of support: “I’m just wondering, have you come, has anyone come and asked our local First Nations people? Because when I’m speaking here on the ground, I’m getting a very mixed response when I’m calling and asking.”

But Albanese became audibly annoyed when the ABC host observed there was confusion among the Australian public looking for “Indigenous leadership on the referendum”.

Poole had pointed out that Indigenous figures from seemingly opposite political persuasions like the Coalition’s Jacinta Price and independent senator Lidia Thorpe were united in leading a “no” campaign, leaving voters “unsure of what to do”.

At that point, Albanese’s exasperation at the mainstream media’s role in an apparent decline in poll numbers for the “yes” case spilt out – suggesting news outlets needed to better explain the divergent views of people like Price and Thorpe, as well as showcasing the support of the likes of Indigenous leaders like Noel Pearson, Pat Dodson and Marcia Langton for the “yes” case.

“The media have a responsibility, frankly,” Albanese said. “You name the two people, and you could name Warren Mundine as well, but who are supporting ‘no’ from different perspectives. From Lidia Thorpe’s perspective, saying it doesn’t go far enough, from the other ‘no’ camp, Warren Mundine and Jacinta Price who are associated with a very conservative political view voting ‘no’.”

Albanese also made a passionate plea: “If we don’t recognise Indigenous Australians in our constitution now, when will we?” But the PM’s undoubted passion for the “yes” case may not be enough to stop the tough questions coming.

 

[mullokintyre]

So you cannot explain how your claim was true, given policies for betterment actually reduce taxpayer spend.

Did you know that in 2021-22, Federal and State governments provided a total of $11.6 billion worth of spending and tax breaks to assist fossil fuel industries? These industry sectors face no disadvantage whatsoever and merely prop up profits.

As usual, its another straw man argument that has nothing to do with the topic, or even the post.
And as usual, you only tell half the picture.
How mcuh tax did the Fossil Fuel industry pay, both at a federal level via company tax, GST, federal excise, , and via royalties and payroll tax to the state governments.

Compare that with the 2023 Budget which invests $1.9 billion over 5 years from 2022–23 to deliver sustained, practical actions to improve the lives and economic opportunities of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people towards Closing the Gap.

And as usual, you only tell half the picture. How mch tax did the Fossil Fuel industry pay, both at a federal level, and via royalties and GST to the state governments.
And to top it off, you only quote the additional expenditure outlined in the budget papers.
According to Federal Government productivity report

the expenditure was 30.4 billion in in the year 2012-2013.
Could not find later figures after some searching, but I would think its reasonable to expect that figure is now closer to 50 billion.
stats are great, you can do anything with em.
Mick

 

[farmerge]

Looks like the PM is under a bit of pressure on similar claims -

The Coffs Harbour local radio host had prompted the response after interrogating the PM at length about claims he made that “up to 90 per cent of First Nations people” support the voice. A feisty exchange ensued after Poole expressed scepticism about the PM’s 90 per cent number​

​

But Albanese became audibly annoyed when the ABC host observed there was confusion among the Australian public looking for “Indigenous leadership on the referendum”.​

JohnDe just more blah blah from them. Nobody knows who's voting for what. I'm definitley voting NO. j

 

[rederob]

As usual, its another straw man argument that has nothing to do with the topic, or even the post.

His reply was about where taxes go, and I showed that we allocate more to propping up fossil fuel related profits than we do to Closing the Gap, which is a principal aim of the Voice. So your skills in logic appear non-existent.

 

[JohnDe]

JohnDe just more blah blah from them. Nobody knows who's voting for what. I'm definitley voting NO. j

I find it interesting that the Yes side have to get angry and abusive, to try and get their message across.

My gym sent out the monthly newsletter with a timely article, maybe the Yes side should read i -

 

[TimeISmoney]

Looks like the PM is under a bit of pressure on similar claims -

The Coffs Harbour local radio host had prompted the response after interrogating the PM at length about claims he made that “up to 90 per cent of First Nations people” support the voice. A feisty exchange ensued after Poole expressed scepticism about the PM’s 90 per cent number​

​

But Albanese became audibly annoyed when the ABC host observed there was confusion among the Australian public looking for “Indigenous leadership on the referendum”.​

The indigenous that want to vote yes will probably vote for the others somehow, just like they did with the Uluru statement. 800 000 indigenous people from 25 million populace in Australia, I doubt the majority of the remanding populace would vote to change a constitution with unknown consequences and also give another group of people an advantage in political decision making that could affect them financially at one of the worst economic times in history. This referendum was doomed from the start, they would have had a far better chance when we were in good economic times.

 

[wayneL]

Dots

The astonishing cost of stopping bushwalkers climbing sacred mountain

Tourists are defying the ban on climbing 'sacred' Mt Warning in northern NSW, forcing National Parks and Wildlife Service to shell out $7,000 a week on a private security firm.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[farmerge]

The indigenous that want to vote yes will probably vote for the others somehow, just like they did with the Uluru statement. 800 000 indigenous people from 25 million populace in Australia, I doubt the majority of the remanding populace would vote to change a constitution with unknown consequences and also give another group of people an advantage in political decision making that could affect them financially at one of the worst economic times in history. This referendum was doomed from the start, they would have had a far better chance when we were in good economic times.

Once again it is the tail wagging a very large dog !!!!

 

[IFocus]

The indigenous that want to vote yes will probably vote for the others somehow, just like they did with the Uluru statement. 800 000 indigenous people from 25 million populace in Australia, I doubt the majority of the remanding populace would vote to change a constitution with unknown consequences and also give another group of people an advantage in political decision making that could affect them financially at one of the worst economic times in history. This referendum was doomed from the start, they would have had a far better chance when we were in good economic times.

The intentions and reasons for the Voice are clear and are totally aligned with the normal democratic processes.

Failure to accept this is a question for your own values and moral compass

 

[TimeISmoney]

The intentions and reasons for the Voice are clear and are totally aligned with the normal democratic processes.

Failure to accept this is a question for your own values and moral compass

Since when is it democracy to vote for something that the whole details of the policy haven't even been made public?

 

[farmerge]

Since when is it democracy to vote for something that the whole details of the policy haven't even been made public?

Oh, well put.

 

[IFocus]

Since when is it democracy to vote for something that the whole details of the policy haven't even been made public?

Again the whole process is very clear as for the details don’t ever vote in an election ever again as general election policy announcements are general in nature with the details being the result of parliament