This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

The Voice

Jump to new
sptrawler said:
When people can start saying the truth on issues without fear of retribution and or media shaming, then things will change.
Click to expand...
I was going to tackle you this proven false comment, but perhaps you think about it when you next write in the Robodebt thread.

Robodebt's legality was questioned from the outset by competent people yet raged for about 4 years. No retribution or media shaming was involved. Instead, it was the sheer power of the government of the day and their complicit public servants to lie and deceive. The public release today of the Commissioner's inquiry into Robodebt shows the trail of lies and deceit that took place and is now laid bare.
 
You have been indulging in classic distraction, just as @Smurf1976 did earlier when his many examples were not relevant to the referendum proposal.
Didn't take long for that to bite you on the ar$e. ?
 
sptrawler said:
And you indulge in classic cancelling, discrediting or disproving, on the grounds of your arrogance and supercilious manner, which actually doesn't mean your right, only that you think your right.
Click to expand...
I have challenged many here to show how their claims can be proven, and none have been sound.
What do you have to offer that is relevant to referendum question?
 
rederob said:
I have challenged many here to show how their claims can be proven, and none have been sound.
What do you have to offer that is relevant to referendum question?
Click to expand...
I claimed at the beginning of the thread, that the 'voice' proposal had been poorly presented, poorly explained and poorly sold, you said I was wrong, at great length as usual.

Well support has fallen off a cliff and the YES camp has had to change their whole narrative, so I was right and you were wrong, at that time.
But you were very forceful in the explanation of why I was wrong back then, so I will give you 100% for self belief. ?

We will see how you go, on the run into the line.

One really good outcome, if the 'voice' does get up, it will mean another section of the Australian society other than the elites, will actually have a voice.
That would be a sensible selling point IMO, at least the general population could relate to it and understand where the Government is coming from and it would be seen as truthful.

This kind of sums up Canberra, from your ABC: I mean seriously, you have to change the constitution, to get Canberra to do their job.?

The new 'prime target' in government's battle to stop the slide in Yes vote

Earlier, the government was putting much faith in "the vibe" to carry the Voice – a general appeal to righting the wrongs of the past and giving Indigenous people the opportunity to be heard. Now the government is desperate to arrest the slide, writes Michelle Grattan.
www.abc.net.au
With this in mind, Ms Burney, the minister for Indigenous Australians, on Wednesday gave the proposed Voice a work program.

"From day one, the Voice will have a full in-tray," she told the National Press Club.

"I will ask the Voice to consider four main priority areas: health, education, jobs and housing."
 
Last edited:
sptrawler said:
You have been indulging in classic distraction, just as @Smurf1976 did earlier when his many examples were not relevant to the referendum proposal.
Didn't take long for that to bite you on the ar$e. ?
Click to expand...
I have responded to many irrelevant comments and said why they didn't cut the mustard.
Yours are no exception!
If people are going to make a claim, at least make it relevant, and then back it up with a rationale.
I have chosen to counter the many outright lies and misrepresentations in this thread, often with the necessary detail to show why. Nevertheless, I still get the likes of @SirRumpole, as just one example, coming back with the idea that the Voice can have external powers despite the Constitution stating quite clearly what it may do. I don't have a cure for what people cannot understand.

I have said many times that the referendum question is simple. I also explained why it was deliberately simple.
If you don't want to recognise first nations people in the Constitution, at least be honest with your view that they don't deserve to be, as everything else being put up is an excuse based on any of many factors, starting with racism. If your excuse is that you don't like the Voice, then all you are really saying is that doctors, for example, shouldn't use the AMA to help get good ideas over the line.
sptrawler said:
I claimed at the beginning of the thread, that the 'voice' proposal had been poorly presented, poorly explained and poorly sold, you said I was wrong, as usual.
Click to expand...
Your experience and mine don't align and I explained why.
 

That was a very informative story. Very sobering reality check on just how disastrous the situation is in these communities. The heading throws it up as a "good news" story and it is - to a certain extent. But if you read the whole story it was very bleak.

I struggle to see how these communities can survive ? become wholesome ? become constructive ? It was horrifying to see that youth workers and other people who were employed to assist the community just gave up and fled. I believe that was their words.
 
There you go again, typical Canberra, talking and not listening, then name calling to demean and decry the other person.

I'm not racist and as I've said on numerous occasions, I much prefer the idea of a treaty.
Because as you constantly prove, there is no point in a voice, if those who you are talking to, don't listen.
 
Last edited:
There are hundreds of similar communities and with the prevalence of illicit drugs, alchohol and substance abuse it doesn't take much to cause social unrest and make for a very dangerous place.
Getting teachers, nurses, police, and service providers(elect/water etc) to live and work out there is a difficult.
There are lots of communities spread throughout the outback and with the communities being associated to a mob from a specific area, there is a huge reluctance to consolidate the communities to make providing the services easier.
 
All that is needed is Local Councils to take on the responsibility to run their own places, if they need extra funding to set it up then just do it.

Exactly what Jacinda, Warren and other positive minded people are saying

A much better result than renaming the proven failures that are leading the push in Canberra.
 
rederob said:
If your excuse is that you don't like the Voice, then all you are really saying is that doctors, for example, shouldn't use the AMA to help get good ideas over the line.
Click to expand...
A key difference is the AMA has no guaranteed access to government.

Nor does any other lobby group from childcare to mining. They might be able to influence government in practice, or they might not, but the constitution doesn't recognise them.

That's a key difference.
 
rederob said:
You have been indulging in classic distraction, just as @Smurf1976 did earlier when his many examples were not relevant to the referendum proposal.
Click to expand...
It should be pointed out that "closing the gap" is also not relevant to the referendum.

It's a Voice to parliament, nothing more and nothing less.

Actually improving the lives of ATSI people is a different issue entirely - the Voice may or may not do that, but it's in no way guaranteed that it will so it's not the question.

If the referendum was about actually fixing things, then I doubt anyone would even try and argue a "no" case.
 

What section of the Constitution are you referring to ?
 
rederob said:
Robodebt's legality was questioned from the outset by competent people yet raged for about 4 years.
Click to expand...
Which is the problem with the Voice is it not?

Government is under no obligation to take any notice of it. Just as it's under no obligation to take any notice of any of the other countless public servants, consultants, lobbyists and others who give it information at present.

Perhaps what we really need is an obligation on government to publicly disclose all advice received?
 
The constitutional changes to give indigenous and their descendants a lifetime second method of influencing public policy is unfair and racist in itself (You're giving a racial privilege). I'm sure most Australians wouldn't have a problem in recognising that indigenous people were the first to inhabit the Australian continent.
 
SP stop digging if you believe in a treaty (outcome goes way beyond the Voice) then you would back the Voice without question as a stepping stone.

Especially as you are a savvy media/ political observer it’s surely a no brainer! ?
 
moXJO said:
The cartoon was not racist ffs.
Click to expand...

OK, so it’s scum bag territory Chaney would be one of the cleanest with the highest regarded integrity serious results in the level he has operated at.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Where will all the money come from to fund the stimulus?
2 3
Replies
50
Views
5K
tech/a
J Capital Research
Replies
1
Views
2K
greggles
N
The Australian Human Rights Commission: A national disgrace
3 4 5
Replies
85
Views
15K
Tisme
R
The American use of War Pretext Incidents
Replies
6
Views
9K
sptrawler
R
The Financial Endgame
Replies
18
Views
9K
qldfrog
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...