IMO one of the most sensible politicians we've ever had in this country:
It's a shame you never learned what an ad hom is.I'm just going to keep quoting your ad homs. RUOK?
My comments reflect the work of the Referendum Council and those who contributed before, and after.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.
Yet the proposal passed the test of most Constitutional experts.Well when it comes to permanent enshrinement in the Constitution that simply won't wash.
How could you support legislation when you refuse to acknowledge the role of Parliament in putting up that level of detail? In simple terms, you are happy for the level of detail to be enshrined in legislation that you have no idea about beforehand, but not if it's the same legislation as would appear in the Voice. Unless it was legislated first????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.
My comments reflect the work of the Referendum Council and those who contributed before, and after.
What you call hard questions merely reflect the role that Parliament will play, but you can't accept that!
Yet the proposal passed the test of most Constitutional experts.
How could you support legislation when you refuse to acknowledge the role of Parliament in putting up that level of detail? In simple terms, you are happy for the level of detail to be enshrined in legislation that you have no idea about beforehand, but not if it's the same legislation as would appear in the Voice. Unless it was legislated first????
I was involved in a bit of a Pub Test on the weekend, went to a pub in a suburb that has a mix of working middle class and high income. After our dinner the conversation drifted to the Voice, a resounding NO from all. I was surprised, thought there would be a few Yes people in the crowd.
I didn't watch the link, but the premise IMO is correct, the huge problem in our society at the moment, is that it's inherent culture of being apologetic is being exploited.Not sure if this link will play, but it is a guy giving his opinion about governments implementing policies that reduce our freedoms. He’s not wrong but he’s not right either.
Democracy allows the majority to have a say and to improve. Sometimes that is not always the case, or there is poor explanation, experience or execution of ideas and changes.
We’re on a slippery slope, and France and the USA is a good example of what can happen with poor quality government.
Log into Facebook
Log into Facebook to start sharing and connecting with your friends, family, and people you know.lm.facebook.com
I think Albo, if he loses, which is likely, will be able to say I tried and can then put something in legislation.I didn't watch the link, but the premise IMO is correct, the huge problem in our society at the moment, is that it's inherent culture of being apologetic is being exploited.
Which is fine until it isn't, then all hell breaks lose, I think those boundaries are being stretched to breaking point ATM, time will tell.
I don't think that manifests itself as it does in places like France, because we aren't the same , but it does manifest itself in Labor going WTFH, as happened in 2019, sadly I think way too many balls in the air and not many going to land well.
Time will tell and I am disappointed because I think Albo has his heart in the right spot, but as so many before him they take too big a bite and as happened to Abbott, the heart being in the right spot doesn't work if it doesn't resonate.
I hope i'm wrong, but the aggressive left, is alienating the middle and it will all end up with this is too hard, we're done.
This actually if potato head plays his cards right and even though they have the baggage from the banking royal commission, the robodebt, the Christian Porter fiasco, could rise from the dead.
Now that would be a huge own goal and I hope to hell it doesn't happen, but if it does, the one thing I will be happy about it will put the Republic issue back years also.
Because it will show that the manipulation of our constitution, is still a very active issue with the voting public, time will tell but I hope everyone takes a huge breath.
I think Albo, if he loses, which is likely, will be able to say I tried and can then put something in legislation.
This isn't the only issue, if it was that would be fine, but the housing, electricity and immigration issues are far more critical.I think Albo, if he loses, which is likely, will be able to say I tried and can then put something in legislation.
Dutton will say he is a winner but he will not want the swinging voters to remember it too much when voting at the next election. He will probably try to ameliorate rate by having a legislative voice as one of his policies.
In the end it will happen which ever way it goes.
There's got to be some sort of strategic plan for the ALP when they lose this. They've gone all in on pocket 2s. And, I don't think they can count cards.
Warren Mundine said never to be the victim, his old folks taught him that.This isn't the only issue, if it was that would be fine, but the housing, electricity and immigration issues are far more critical.
The 'voice' is far more emotional and the general public will be wondering WTF, it doesn't effect me, why don't they put my problems into the constitution.
This is a real problem when you are encouraging a victim mentality, you have to decide who you are going to decide qualifies and then work out who is scamming.
No doubt there'd be other groups with similarly high percentages living in poverty.How does that explain the greater percentage of ATSI children that live in poverty?
While definitions vary, on average over 40% of indigenous families live below the poverty line, compared with less about 15% of non-indigenous families. From that we can estimate that about half of all indigenous children live in families with incomes below the poverty line, compared with about 20 per cent of non-indigenous children.
In an attempt to be completely neutral, I'll ask you to put yourself in the shoes of Joe Average Citizen looking at this from the outside.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.
Smurf i am no expert, you cannot solve the kids problem without addressing the family disfunction that starts it all amongst relationship disfunction domestic violence and all round trauma.
Agreed.Bandyup detention centre has a 80 to 90 reoffending rate for Aboriginal kids locking them up doesn’t work
And definitely not based on a newly built racial apartheid regime .In an attempt to be completely neutral, I'll ask you to put yourself in the shoes of Joe Average Citizen looking at this from the outside.
As a concept they think the living conditions of many Aboriginal people are totally unacceptable and need fixing ASAP. There's no objection to the idea that improvement is needed.
On the other hand they've been lied to so many times by politicians that quite simply they're not looking at the intent of the Voice but rather, they're looking for loopholes or other means by which it can be used against them.
That's the sad reality of Australian society in 2023 and it's one that ought concern everyone. A substantial portion of society has simply lost trust in government, they don't trust government to not sell them out, and we now have resistance not just to the Voice but to any change at all.
If it were up to me, if I were the PM, then I'd legislate the Voice but I'd do it in the context of a very major push that initially focuses on eliminating disadvantage for all Australian children, regardless of their ancestry, and to do so in a very timely manner.
No grand speeches about children living in poverty but rather, practical solutions. A focus on all having access to proper primary, secondary and tertiary education and government being willing to back them where the family can't or won't.
A "break the cycle" approach in short. One that's resourced and with clear requirements for rapid progress to be achieved.
That was interesting, not one cabinet member could give a straight answer on the Voice, Albo gives in depth answers with many untruths. There are already high court judges that have come forwards in the media and are in disagreement with each other, that it could lead to litigation. Also, many of these statements of the voice only relating to indigenous matters only are false, what happens when an indigenous person wants to claim a native land title over private land and even on public land that non idiginous have used for years? They could use their arbitration to prolong projects by putting off meetings and costing the reissue of permits that could lead to the 100s of thousands in the cost of renewing building permits and possibly millions in some cases. The outcome of this will affect every Australian, not just one group.Good evening
Hansard - House of Representatives 22/06/23
MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE - Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice
For discussion within the House of Representatives: This Government's inability to explain what the Voice is and how it would work. Moved by: Leader of the Opposition.
Comments from:
Balanced? You judge.
- Mr DUTTON (Dickson—Leader of the Opposition);
- Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Prime Minister);
- Mr PASIN (Barker);
- Mr DREYFUS (Isaacs—Attorney-General and Cabinet Secretary);
- Mr WOLAHAN (Menzies);
- Ms BURNEY (Barton—Minister for Indigenous Australians);
- Ms WARE (Hughes);
- Mr BURKE (Watson—Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, Minister for the Arts and Leader of the House);
- Mr PEARCE (Braddon); and
- Mr BANDT (Melbourne—Leader of the Australian Greens)
Have a very nice week.
Kind regards
rcw1
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?