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.
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.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.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.
One would think that a constitutional recognition of original ownership, gives grounds for legal leverage of some sort, well that's my guess.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.
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.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.
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.Yes, and that sort of secrecy may well kill it in the end, same as the Republic.
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 ?
So what? There are first peoples all over the planet, often displaced and/or overwhelmed by others.they were here 1st
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?and yet there is nothing in the constitution or any of Australia's symbol's (Oz flag etc) that reflects that.
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.
The best explanation I've seen so far.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.
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.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.
I'm just a pleb, who is retired and struggling along, being self funded and living on my wits.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?
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?