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
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 ?.
Most of them have said the aim was mid-October but I think they already know how it's going to roll.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
Thanks @TimeISmoney ,Most of them have said the aim was mid-October but I think they already know how it's going to roll.
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?
I see ...That will all be decided by Parliament after the vote.
Yes.I see ...
After the vote to decide on whether a Voice to Parliament should go ahead.
gg
"Trust the pollies" is what they want us to do.I see ...
gg
I presume one can bet on the outcome."Trust the pollies" is what they want us to do.
I presume one can bet on the outcome.
gg
I must check tonight.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.
That's most likely one of the most controversial questions on the internet at current.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
I just had to check what the odds were.I presume one can bet on the outcome.
gg
Thanks @TimeISmoneyThat'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.
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.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
That is my reading of the situation, having read back on the less than bipartisan musings of fellow ASF members on this thread.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.
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?