- Joined
- 26 March 2014
- Posts
- 20,056
- Reactions
- 12,627
What you have said is true, but we don't enshrine political parties in the Constitution., we can throw them out if we don't like what they do.
What you have said is true, but we don't enshrine political parties in the Constitution., we can throw them out if we don't like what they do.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
The referendum has absolutely nothing to do with any particular "policy".Since when is it democracy to vote for something that the whole details of the policy haven't even been made public?
What you have said is true, but we don't enshrine political parties in the Constitution., we can throw them out if we don't like what they do.
The referendum has absolutely nothing to do with any particular "policy".
Nobody is voting on policies.
You either support the concept of recognising first nations in the Constitution, or you do not.
The proposition is as simple as can be.
The Constitution provides a framework for government, and within that framework there are elected representatives that provide input into Parliament. The Voice simply adds a new Chapter IX, Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples to the framework, noting this new body may make representations to the Parliament.
How it's going to be actioned has barely come up for conversation.
The Federal Parliament would have a proposed bill to change the constitution.
Laws start as bills – proposed laws – which put policies into action.
Given it's up to Departments of State to action legislation, why would it?How it's going to be actioned has barely come up for conversation.
If you had read about the Voice you would know that all the necessary steps had been set out.The Federal Parliament would have a proposed bill to change the constitution.
The Voice has nothing to do with legislation.Laws start as bills – proposed laws – which put policies into action.
You really are the lowest of the low when it comes to deliberate misinformation based on your closet racism.Let's remember that Labor is controlled by the virtue signalling Greens that got Lydia Thorpe into the Senate and could well decide to give The Voice powers that the majority of Australians would not agree with.
You really are the lowest of the low when it comes to deliberate misinformation based on your closet racism.
It is impossible for "advice" - the only function of the Voice in respect of making representations to Parliament - to be weaponised as "powers".
When you are not lying in this thread you are showing how little you care about bringing ATSI peoples to parity with the non-indigenous.
Indigenous voice to parliament: Linda Burney in damage control over Yes campaign
Linda Burney is now seeking to ameliorate the damage she and the government helped inflict on the Yes campaign for the voice in the final week of parliament before the winter break.
The damage from a failure to supply detail, and the subsequent dispute over the remit of the voice in its advice to executive government and parliament, has been acute. It has become the central problem for the government.
A new strategy was always going to be required for the government to halt the momentum of the No campaign.
In a speech to the National Press Club on Wednesday, the Indigenous Australians Minister will hope to reset the government’s narrative and provide a template for the Yes campaign to address community concerns.
The most notable shift is an attempt to put some firm guardrails around the voice and what its focus will, or at least should, be.
This was desperately needed weeks ago, if not months.
Burney now says that under her watch as minister, she will be directing the voice to advise her on better Indigenous policy outcomes across four priority areas: health, education, employment and housing.
This is the first time the government has articulated such an explicit set of policy areas it expects the functions of the voice to concentrate on.
They should have been obvious from the outset.
But it is the most clear Burney has been about it since being left stranded in parliament two weeks ago unable to answer questions from the opposition.
In trying to allay fears over what the voice will and won’t be able to advise on, following the absurd debate over issues such as parking tickets, Burney is now suggesting the government will be more strident in its expectations of what the voice will advise on.
This position risks injecting a new and contestable element into the debate with the claim that it will be the minister who directs the voice as to what it should be interested in.
While Indigenous leaders won’t disagree that the priorities Burney has identified are the ones the voice should be most concerned with, some may take exception to what might appear to be a question over its independence.
The danger for Burney is that by seeking to erect barriers around what the voice can advise on, a new front of contention is opened up with its architects.
While Burney’s speech could be seen as an admission that the Yes campaign strategy is failing, it is an important step in addressing the obvious weaknesses that have bedevilled the government up until now.
The question is whether it will be enough to start shifting the dial.
SIMON BENSON
You consistently show you do not understand anything about the Voice and, apparently now, how government operates.If you say it relates to the voice's internal powers then that should be made clear otherwise it could be used to create powers for the voice that the public did not intend it to have.
Show how it cannot. Powers are what the Parliament determines. There is no reference to whether the powers are internal or externalYou consistently show you do not understand anything about the Voice and, apparently now, how government operates.
Rather than repeat your claim, show how the Voice could have external powers to prove your point.
The Constitutional amendment confers the role of the Voice.Show how it cannot. Powers are what the Parliament determines. There is no reference to whether the powers are internal or external
Looks like there will be more detail released, soon.
The damage from a failure to supply detail, and the subsequent dispute over the remit of the voice in its advice to executive government and parliament, has been acute. It has become the central problem for the government.A new strategy was always going to be required for the government to halt the momentum of the No campaign.In a speech to the National Press Club on Wednesday, the Indigenous Australians Minister will hope to reset the government’s narrative and provide a template for the Yes campaign to address community concerns.
Show how it cannot. Powers are what the Parliament determines. There is no reference to whether the powers are internal or external
It does make one wonder what the Federal and State departments of aboriginal affairs and their ministers have been doing, when you have the Federal Minister asking these questions, it sounds to me like a lot of people are in the wrong job:
The first thing I would be doing, is sending the heads of the departments to spend a bit of time out there with the people, I don't think a 5 hour stay in Alice Springs qualifies them.
Linda Burney says there is everything to gain and nothing to lose by supporting the Voice
Indigenous Australians Minister Linda Burney names four priorities for the proposed Voice to Parliament in a speech to the National Press Club, after growing pressure to detail how it would benefit First Nations people.www.abc.net.au
"I will ask the Voice to consider four main priority areas: health, education, jobs and housing," Minister Burney will say.
"Bring me your ideas on how to stop our people from taking their own lives," she will say.
"Bring me your ideas on how to help our kids go to school and thrive, bring me your ideas on how we make sure our mob live strong and healthy lives."
Words are words IFocus and good intentions can be manipulated.Jezzas Rump god help us if you had actually read the reasoning behind the wording of the Voice you wouldn't even be thinking the above don't know who you are reading to get this from but it isn't healthy never alone any where near the truth.
PS you also should never consider voting ever again hell bells the sky will fall in....
We are putting recognition into the Constitution.Once again , let indigenous people have a say just don't put it in the Constitution
Do you think for one minute that the Governments Federal and State don't know what the problems are already?Answer, read the gap report.
Or take the sage advice offered up here by the no campaigner's apparently they have all the answers you need ....meeeow...
Do you think for one minute that the Governments Federal and State don't know what the problems are already?
Do you think they haven't already had endless consultations with the indigenous parties and communities?
Do you think the smartest people in the public service haven't looked at every avenue and canvassed them already with the local aboriginal communities and their elders?
I mean really are you that naive, I wouldn't have thought so, they've had people like Rob working on this for years.
The other point as I mentioned early in the thread, if it is intended to have no power or means of influencing Government, why bother, Why not make it a part of the Department of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island affairs.
I mean what we are really saying is the Department of ATSIC was a waste of taxpayers money and should be investigated for wasting taxpayers money for the last X amount of years.
It sounds to me like the early stages of moving the cost off the Government books, but hey I'm a cynic.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?