The Voice

[JohnDe]

I don't know I think the answer will be different for all here is a link from a Mundine for an insight to some thinking not saying its for all

https://www.ncca.org.au/natsiec/162-poor-fellow-my-country-ces-talk-2/file

Is this the same Mundine convicted of child sex offences? Graeme Mundine?

Former Head of Aboriginal Catholic Ministry convicted of child sex crimes

A well-known Aboriginal rights advocate and prominent figure in the Catholic archdiocese of Sydney has been sentenced to prison for historic offences of pedophilia.

www.sbs.com.au

 

[IFocus]

I hope you're not trying to pass off an article from the convicted child sex offender Graeme Mundine, as an authority to be listened to.

Former Head of Aboriginal Catholic Ministry convicted of child sex crimes

A well-known Aboriginal rights advocate and prominent figure in the Catholic archdiocese of Sydney has been sentenced to prison for historic offences of pedophilia.

www.sbs.com.au

Thanks for that didn’t know ?

Not that I agree but apparently another poster here believes that won’t affect the objectivity of the author ?.

 

[JohnDe]

Thanks for that didn’t know ?

Not that I agree but apparently another poster here believes that won’t affect the objectivity of the author ?.

I edited my original post because I couldn't believe that you would purposefully use the words of a convicted pedophile. I started thinking that, even though unlikely, there must be another Graeme Mundine.

On further research, no there is not. There is only one Graeme Mundine here.

JAILED: Marist Brother Graeme Mundine was a danger to children, and five of them eventually spoke to police | Broken Rites Australia

www.brokenrites.org.au

 

[TimeISmoney]

What I've previously stated on here coming from a politician's mouth that has represented ATSI for years.

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

I find it strange that with less than three months to go for the earliest date for The Voice Referendum, (October to December), thus far no date has been set.

gg

 

[TimeISmoney]

I find it strange that with less than three months to go for the earliest date for The Voice Referendum, (October to December), thus far no date has been set.

gg

Most of them have said the aim was mid-October but I think they already know how it's going to roll.

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

Most of them have said the aim was mid-October but I think they already know how it's going to roll.

Thanks @TimeISmoney ,

I still find it strange that the date has not been set.

Two more questions while I've got you ...

From the official pronouncements how will The Voice "work" and what will be the composition of the body or entity tasked with delivering The Voice to Parliament?

gg

 

[SirRumpole]

From the official pronouncements how will The Voice "work" and what will be the composition of the body or entity tasked with delivering The Voice to Parliament?

That will all be decided by Parliament after the vote.

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

That will all be decided by Parliament after the vote.

I see ...

After the vote to decide on whether a Voice to Parliament should go ahead.

gg

 

[SirRumpole]

I see ...

After the vote to decide on whether a Voice to Parliament should go ahead.

gg

Yes.

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

Yes.

I see ...

gg

 

[SirRumpole]

I see ...

gg

"Trust the pollies" is what they want us to do.

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

"Trust the pollies" is what they want us to do.

I presume one can bet on the outcome.

gg

 

[SirRumpole]

I presume one can bet on the outcome.

gg

On the result of the referendum, yes it's either yes or no.

On the details you asked about, your guess is as good as mine.

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

On the result of the referendum, yes it's either yes or no.

On the details you asked about, your guess is as good as mine.

I must check tonight.

I always like to make a quid out of issues such as this.

gg

 

[TimeISmoney]

Thanks @TimeISmoney ,

I still find it strange that the date has not been set.

Two more questions while I've got you ...

From the official pronouncements how will The Voice "work" and what will be the composition of the body or entity tasked with delivering The Voice to Parliament?

gg

That's most likely one of the most controversial questions on the internet at current.

Not even the minister for indigenous affairs can give a completely accurate answer in fine detail about how it will all work.

The basic idea that they're trying to sell Australia is that they want to form a totally independent body all elected by nongovernment bodies to liaise with government officials around indigenous issues, like housing, health, education, native title, repatriation, and so on, all paid by the Australian government. Their idea of this body being enshrined in the constitution is that so this independant group can never be removed or disbanded by the government as some of the other advisory groups have been done in the past, which is highly contested amongst many because of the lack of fine detail.

 

[TimeISmoney]

I presume one can bet on the outcome.

gg

I just had to check what the odds were.

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

That's most likely one of the most controversial questions on the internet at current.

Not even the minister for indigenous affairs can give a completely accurate answer in fine detail about how it will all work.

The basic idea that they're trying to sell Australia is that they want to form a totally independent body all elected by nongovernment bodies to liaise with government officials around indigenous issues, like housing, health, education, native title, repatriation, and so on, all paid by the Australian government. Their idea of this body being enshrined in the constitution is that so this independant group can never be removed or disbanded by the government as some of the other advisory groups have been done in the past, which is highly contested amongst many because of the lack of fine detail.

Thanks @TimeISmoney

There is enough there to keep people arguing for a lifetime.

Is there much conversation as to whether the government set the question up in such a way that the Yes proposition would fail.

It appears to me that as well as a Yes or No camp there would be a large number of people voting No because of lack of information and the complexity of what has to be considered. In other words a "Get me outta here" camp for whom whatever way they would instinctually vote on a proposition such as this would be inclined to vote No anyway for safety as it involves a change to the Constitution.

gg

 

[TimeISmoney]

Thanks @TimeISmoney

There is enough there to keep people arguing for a lifetime.

Is there much conversation as to whether the government set the question up in such a way that the Yes proposition would fail.

It appears to me that as well as a Yes or No camp there would be a large number of people voting No because of lack of information and the complexity of what has to be considered. In other words a "Get me outta here" camp for whom whatever way they would instinctually vote on a proposition such as this would be inclined to vote No anyway for safety as it involves a change to the Constitution.

gg

I think there's been a backlash from different parts of the government but I haven't really heard much in the way of it being intentionally set up to fail from the federal end.

Most of the articles that I've read about the Australian constitution explain that it was written in a way that it was nearly impossible to modify, and that's one of the reasons why the final stage has a two-part system of voting to pass ( double majority ). It's been made difficult to change for a very good reason.

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

I think there's been a backlash from different parts of the government but I haven't really heard much in the way of it being intentionally set up to fail from the federal end.

Most of the articles that I've read about the Australian constitution explain that it was written in a way that it was nearly impossible to modify, and that's one of the reasons why the final stage has a two-part system of voting to pass ( double majority ). It's been made difficult to change for a very good reason.

That is my reading of the situation, having read back on the less than bipartisan musings of fellow ASF members on this thread.

Where there has been a simple straightforward proposal put to a referendum and there has been grassroot bipartisan support, then the yes vote has prevailed. On the contrary where there has been a fuzzy proposal with a lack of support on the street it has been rejected.

To a betting shop this little citizen will wend his way, although their odds will be definitive and probably quite unsupportive of anything but a very large bet to justify the journey as opposed to throwing a few K at the NASDAQ.

gg