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
First, if the Voice got up it would take a few years to get in place everything necessary for it to be effective.
Secondly, you do not "resolve in a timely manner" issues that have been in place for generations. In 1987 Bob Hawke made a claim about children not living in poverty, and how is that one going?
Finally, public debate has never been unipolar. Bigger matters today relate to costs of living, mortgage stress, inflation and interest rates.
It's really easy to fudge climate change effort. Very few people understand how meaningless it is to say we are on track to meet our 2030 pledge. What they will understand is how weather extremes are impacting various communities, or that load shedding (blackouts) is occurring through a failure to futureproof our energy systems.
On the other hand we have a large population who deny there is a problem, deny the science, and claim we are irrelevant to the problem because of our population.
What is different here is that we have irrefutable data from Closing the Gap and can track the policy areas that have failed to make a difference. So with the Voice in place, and an ability to see where they have provided advice, we will have a transparency that does not exist in the climate debate.
 
rederob said:
So with the Voice in place, and an ability to see where they have provided advice, we will have a transparency that does not exist in the climate debate.
Click to expand...

What is the guarantee of "transparency" ?

Ordinary citizens don't get to see advice presented to Cabinet by Public Servants or corporations so why will it be different for the Voice ?
 

The British took hold of Australia on the legal basis that the land was unoccupied.

Federation formed from the same lie.

So Australia was built on a lie and by your account still being perpetrated today?
 
SirRumpole said:
What is the guarantee of "transparency" ?

Ordinary citizens don't get to see advice presented to Cabinet by Public Servants or corporations so why will it be different for the Voice ?
Click to expand...
Your ignorance shines like a beacon to racism.
Why don't you start to read about what the Voice is and how it is being proposed to operate?
 
rederob said:
Your ignorance shines like a beacon to racism.
Why don't you start to read about what the Voice is and how it is being proposed to operate?
Click to expand...

If you can't answer the question, that's your problem, troll.



" An internet troll is someone who makes intentionally inflammatory, rude, or upsetting statements online to elicit strong emotional responses in people or to steer the conversation off-topic. They can come in many forms. Most trolls do this for their own amusement, but other forms of trolling are done to push a specific agenda."
 
Last edited:
We had irrefutable evidence that the 'Gonski" report was going to improve outcomes in the education system, now years later the results are in and it showing that the problems wasn't related to the issues as identified by the report, but by the teachers being trained incorrectly and delivering poor outcomes.
Which the Government is now trying to address, meanwhile we now have two generations of sliding educational outcomes to address
So actually getting a report to say what those who funded and set up the report want, isn't very difficult, actually changing or improving the real outcomes are. As Jason Clare is finding out as he attempts to clean up the mess.

As @IFocus says the high level of reoffending with indigenous kids, is showing that jail isn't working, that doesn't prove that not jailing them will improve the situation either.
It is easy to draw conclusions, it is proving much more difficult to explain an alternative.
What also isn't helping the debate is the W.A native title changes that have recently been enacted, it is starting to appear that a gravy train of companies to identify heritage sites are going to appear.

In todays 'West Australian' there is an example of person who bought a 4,000sqm block in Exmouth 2 years ago, he now has to get it checked for heritage sites at a cost of $20k and if there are sites found what then? Should the survey be paid for by the purchaser, or should it be the council/Governments responsibility?
Will there be caveats put of heritage listed land and will existing landowners be compensated by the Government for loss of value, they paid their stamp duty on the understanding the titles office gave clear title.
Interesting times ahead.
 
Like I said these things benefit the elites with no outcome for the plebs.

I believe that is intentional.
 
IFocus said:
The British took hold of Australia on the legal basis that the land was unoccupied.

Federation formed from the same lie.

So Australia was built on a lie and by your account still being perpetrated today?
Click to expand...
The voice in no way addresses that issue and IMO that is the main problem, until that issue is sorted the Indigenous population can always say everything is a result of colonisation and the land being taken from them, as you rightly do.

So unless something more structured is presented, the voice in many people's eyes, is just a case of throwing good money after bad.
That is from sources other than the forum by the way, at the end of the day it will all be about the cost and who foots the bill.
There was no public backlash when Kev appologised, things are moving to a whole new level and people are rightfully getting nervous, many worked hard to get what they have and they sense it is under threat by stealth.
That's life, I think as usual good intentions are turning into a disaster, as usually happens when the Governments have a brain fart without some serious planning.
The Electrical issue is also coming to a boil also, hopefully some of these projects that the Govt have up in the air get landed soon, because the public is getting more nervous by the day IMO.
 
Have these property owners got a representative body protected by the constitution and paid at the cost of the tax payer that can advise on these matters?
 
SirRumpole said:
If you can't answer the question, that's your problem, troll.
Click to expand...
The answer to your question and every other question you have put up has been answered in publicly available information.
I also provided a link at post #1574 that made it clear.
It's tedious addressing your ignorance so why don't you read or watch people who have explained what you want to know. Linda Burney last provided an answer to your question on Insiders yesterday, and she has regularly reiterated the Voice will be transparent and accountable.
 
Linda Burney is not Constitutionally enshrined, so she can't guarantee anything.
 
Sean K said:
I've only take you off ignore for a day to see what you might be posting, but it remains the same. Continuously and persistently ad hom.
Click to expand...
Maybe you too might read what has been posted and written, and can be accessed by anyone who cares to be informed.
It's tedious addressing wilful ignorance. @SirRumpole has made an artform of asking questions that have been many times answered but he chooses not to understand or cannot understand.

I don't get distracted by streams of irrelevant posts, but I try to correct misinformation and also point out outright lies. I have yet to see a credible case for the "no" vote. The reason why this is so is due to the referendum question's simplicity. Despite what people might think, an outcome would be Constitutional recognition enshrined in a body that can provide advice. The only people affected are indigenous, and they stand to benefit if Parliament accepts and acts their advice. How there can be harm in a change that could be beneficial to a sector who suffer more disadvantage than average for all citizens defies common sense.

Edit: To confirm my point you only need to look at post #1632 which you gave the thumbs up to. The Australian government, in my referenced link, state:
  • The Voice would be subject to standard governance and reporting requirements to ensure transparency and accountability.
Please show or explain how what I have said is not an example of wilful ignorance on your part and his.
 
If people had faith and trust in Government, that would have no trouble getting through, it is a sad reflection on the state of our politicians that people are wary.
But their wariness is understandable and has to be respected, that should have been identified and sorted in the preparation stage.
 
What happens in places like Cairns and Darwin is that they commit offenses in isolated communities and then get trialed by the city courts, to avoid tribal punishment or family embarrassment they don't return to their original community and instead hang around cities.



A lot of what you say is just your opinion, many reputable lawyers have commented on the wording of constitutional changes saying that it really isn't fully explanatory of its function and can be interpreted in many ways.
 
Last edited:
Your arguments simply parrot the opinions of proponents of the voice who have an interest in sanitising the proposal to a level of simplicity that they think will fool the public into an emotional response without asking hard questions. Well when it comes to permanent enshrinement in the Constitution that simply won't wash.

SeanK had the right idea, legislate it first and if it works then put it to a referendum because as it is we are supposed to trust politicians who keep screwing us over.
 
Last edited:
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...