The Voice

[rederob]

Got no idea what your second point is other than Craven actually said what he said.

You seem unable to work out what deceptive means. You said, "Can't believe Craven has complained about being quoted word for word and absolutely in context."
Given the context was using a statement from a long-term proponent of the "yes" vote in official "no" campaign literature (without attribution), readers would be deceived. A headline in the SMH reads:

"Legal expert outraged by ‘out of context’ inclusion in Voice No pamphlet"​

When a Constitutional lawyer says he has been quoted out of context, it gives the lie to your claim that it was "absolutely in context."
And yet another lie:

There's no deception presented

I have an excellent dictionary I can send to you so that you choose words that you understand in future.

 

[JohnDe]

First Nation’s Voice to Parliament:​

The Argument for Voting NO​

Why we cannot vote YES to the current referendum proposal​

Constitutional recognition of Indigenous people is desirable and can be achieved. However, this referendum on the Voice is the wrong way to achieve that goal as it creates a Constitutional entity with unlimited scope that erodes a fundamental principle of democracy, the equality of citizenship.
It is simply incorrect to equate opposition to the proposed Voice with opposition to constitutional recognition of Indigenous people. Most people of goodwill would readily accept a constitutional change that recognised Indigenous people were the first occupants of this continent.

Arguments Against the Voice​

The real purpose of this referendum is to change our system of government by injecting a permanent element of racial privilege into the heart of the Constitution. It would give Indigenous Australians – and their descendants for all time – a second method of influencing public policy that goes beyond the benefits of representative democracy that are already enjoyed by all citizens regardless of race.
It would constitutionalise a race-based lobby group, equipped with a separate bureaucracy, that would give Indigenous citizens the ability to have an additional say on every law and administrative decision, not just those relating specifically to Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders.
Although Constitutional recognition of Indigenous people is a worthwhile goal, this referendum should be rejected as it introduces a new entity within the Constitution with almost unlimited scope that threatens equality of citizenship in Australia.

Chris Merritt speaking at the Rule of Law Conference.
Click here to read all of Chris’ commentary on the Voice
“Eight years ago I saw nothing wrong with requiring parliament to listen to Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders before using its power under section 51(xxvi) of the Constitution to make special laws that only affect Indigenous people. I still hold that view. This early model is what many people believe they are being asked to endorse. They are wrong.
This is not what is on offer at this referendum.”
– Chris Merritt, Vice President of the Rule of Law Education Centre and Legal Affairs Contributor to the Australian Newspaper
The problem with the current model for the Voice comes down to two associated issues:

1. The unlimited scope of the subject matter with which the Voice can involve itself
2. Equality of Citizenship where all Australians should be equal not just before the law, but before those who make the law and those who apply the law.

Unlimited Scope​

a. Support for a Voice that provides advice on laws that relate only to Indigenous people​

There is a legitimate argument that Indigenous people should be heard before parliament makes special laws about them under the Constitution’s race power in section 51(xxvi). In practice, that power has only been used to make laws on Indigenous affairs.
So because Indigenous people are the only Australians singled out by race for special laws, there is a logical argument for matching that power with a requirement that they should be heard before that power under section 51(xxiv) is exercised. It would therefore make sense to establish a Voice if it were limited to providing advice to parliament, not the executive, on laws enacted under section 51(xxvi). It might even be feasible to give it a flexible boundary so it could provide advice on matters that have a specific impact on Indigenous people that goes beyond the impact on the general community.
It is perfectly logical for Indigenous people to have a say before parliament makes special laws on the basis of race that affect them alone.

b. Indigenous Voice extends beyond Indigenous matters​

The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice may make representations to the Parliament and the Executive Government of the Commonwealth on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples
-Proposed section 129(ii)
The jurisdiction of the Voice extends beyond matters that relate only to Indigenous affairs and includes any matter that relates to Indigenous peoples. The Voice is free to involve itself in any debate that affects the broader community so long as it relates to Indigenous peoples.
On January 23 Noel Pearson told Patricia Karvelas on ABC radio: “There is hardly any subject matter that Indigenous people would not be affected by and would not want to provide their advice to parliament.” Indigenous constitutional lawyer Megan Davis, who helped develop the Voice, shares this view. On December 21 last year she was asked on ABC television what issues Indigenous Australians wanted to talk about to parliament through the voice.
Davis’s answer: “At this point, virtually every issue.”
Then on July 5, Minister for Indigenous Australians Linda Burney asserted that she “will ask the Voice to consider four main priority areas; health, education, jobs and housing.” Her statement validates these criticisms that the Voice would not be limited to areas of critical importance to Indigenous people but instead would have a remit that goes right across the Board.
If the government had wanted to focus the Voice on Indigenous affairs, or on matters that relate only to Indigenous people or even primarily to Indigenous people, it would have included such qualifications in the words that would be inserted into the Constitution.

Equality of Citizenship​

In the referendum we are being asked to constitutionalise a race-based lobby group, paid for by taxpayers, that could involve itself not just in debates on Indigenous affairs, but in debates about all matters of public policy, all proposed laws and all administrative decisions.
It will be empowered to make representations that reach into the executive branch of government, and not just the parliament.
The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice may make representations to theParliament and the ExecutiveGovernment of the Commonwealth on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples
-Proposed section 129(ii)
That extended scope means we are being asked to constitutionalise a system of racial preference. Extending the jurisdiction of the Voice beyond Indigenous affairs, as proposed by the government, cannot be reconciled with the idea that all Australians should be equal not just before the law, but before those who make the law and those who apply the law.
It would give one group of Australians an entitlement to additional and unjustified influence over all public policy, all law making and all public administration.

Click here to read all of Chris’ commentary on the Voice
Consider what this country would look like if this referendum succeeds. Those with the right genetic inheritance – and their descendants for all time – would gain an additional method of influencing politicians and officials that would surpass the normal rights of citizenship. The Voice would be empowered to make race-based representations about all areas of public administration and all new laws. Public servants would be in a truly dreadful position. Instead of making decisions according to law and the instructions of their superiors, they would need to consider representations from an institution of state whose only purpose would be to inject racial preference into public administration. Every federal minister and every decision maker in the federal public service could be at risk unless they inform the Voice before making decisions, provide information about matters awaiting decision, wait for a response from the Voice and generate a paper trail showing the views of the Voice have been considered. How much information will ministers and public servants be required to give the voice about decisions they propose to make? How long would ministers and public servants need to wait while the voice considers its position?
As Paul Kelly, Editor-at-Large of the Australian newspaper recently said
“The Voice contradicts the principle of equality of citizenship that enshrines and binds together our nation. The Voice is based on the principle that we have different constitutional rights depending on our ancestry. We need to think about that as a country. And think whether or not we really want that to happen. The Voice contradicts the principle of equality of citizenship that enshrines and binds together our nation…
This is a change in the Constitution that, being realistic, would be forever.
What will that mean for the unity of our country?”
Racial preference never ends well.
Equality of citizenship is fundamental to what it means to live in a democracy.
It is reinforced by the fact that the source of Australian sovereignty is the people of this nation – all of them, regardless of race or national origin, and regardless of whether they arrived yesterday or have antecedents who arrived 60,000 years ago. If you believe everyone should be equal in the eyes of the law and in the eyes of those who make and administer the law, this referendum must be rejected.

Voice- The Case for Voting NO | Rule of Law Education Centre

www.ruleoflaw.org.au

 

[Sean K]

You seem unable to work out what deceptive means. You said, "Can't believe Craven has complained about being quoted word for word and absolutely in context."
Given the context was using a statement from a long-term proponent of the "yes" vote in official "no" campaign literature (without attribution), readers would be deceived. A headline in the SMH reads:

"Legal expert outraged by ‘out of context’ inclusion in Voice No pamphlet"​

When a Constitutional lawyer says he has been quoted out of context, it gives the lie to your claim that it was "absolutely in context."
And yet another lie:

I have an excellent dictionary I can send to you so that you choose words that you understand in future.

 

[Sean K]

First Nation’s Voice to Parliament:​

The Argument for Voting NO​

Why we cannot vote YES to the current referendum proposal​

Constitutional recognition of Indigenous people is desirable and can be achieved. However, this referendum on the Voice is the wrong way to achieve that goal as it creates a Constitutional entity with unlimited scope that erodes a fundamental principle of democracy, the equality of citizenship.
It is simply incorrect to equate opposition to the proposed Voice with opposition to constitutional recognition of Indigenous people. Most people of goodwill would readily accept a constitutional change that recognised Indigenous people were the first occupants of this continent.

Arguments Against the Voice​

The real purpose of this referendum is to change our system of government by injecting a permanent element of racial privilege into the heart of the Constitution. It would give Indigenous Australians – and their descendants for all time – a second method of influencing public policy that goes beyond the benefits of representative democracy that are already enjoyed by all citizens regardless of race.
It would constitutionalise a race-based lobby group, equipped with a separate bureaucracy, that would give Indigenous citizens the ability to have an additional say on every law and administrative decision, not just those relating specifically to Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders.
Although Constitutional recognition of Indigenous people is a worthwhile goal, this referendum should be rejected as it introduces a new entity within the Constitution with almost unlimited scope that threatens equality of citizenship in Australia.
View attachment 159931
Chris Merritt speaking at the Rule of Law Conference.
Click here to read all of Chris’ commentary on the Voice

“Eight years ago I saw nothing wrong with requiring parliament to listen to Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders before using its power under section 51(xxvi) of the Constitution to make special laws that only affect Indigenous people. I still hold that view. This early model is what many people believe they are being asked to endorse. They are wrong.
This is not what is on offer at this referendum.”
– Chris Merritt, Vice President of the Rule of Law Education Centre and Legal Affairs Contributor to the Australian Newspaper

The problem with the current model for the Voice comes down to two associated issues:

1. The unlimited scope of the subject matter with which the Voice can involve itself
2. Equality of Citizenship where all Australians should be equal not just before the law, but before those who make the law and those who apply the law.

Unlimited Scope​

a. Support for a Voice that provides advice on laws that relate only to Indigenous people​

There is a legitimate argument that Indigenous people should be heard before parliament makes special laws about them under the Constitution’s race power in section 51(xxvi). In practice, that power has only been used to make laws on Indigenous affairs.
So because Indigenous people are the only Australians singled out by race for special laws, there is a logical argument for matching that power with a requirement that they should be heard before that power under section 51(xxiv) is exercised. It would therefore make sense to establish a Voice if it were limited to providing advice to parliament, not the executive, on laws enacted under section 51(xxvi). It might even be feasible to give it a flexible boundary so it could provide advice on matters that have a specific impact on Indigenous people that goes beyond the impact on the general community.
It is perfectly logical for Indigenous people to have a say before parliament makes special laws on the basis of race that affect them alone.

b. Indigenous Voice extends beyond Indigenous matters​

The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice may make representations to the Parliament and the Executive Government of the Commonwealth on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples
-Proposed section 129(ii)
The jurisdiction of the Voice extends beyond matters that relate only to Indigenous affairs and includes any matter that relates to Indigenous peoples. The Voice is free to involve itself in any debate that affects the broader community so long as it relates to Indigenous peoples.
On January 23 Noel Pearson told Patricia Karvelas on ABC radio: “There is hardly any subject matter that Indigenous people would not be affected by and would not want to provide their advice to parliament.” Indigenous constitutional lawyer Megan Davis, who helped develop the Voice, shares this view. On December 21 last year she was asked on ABC television what issues Indigenous Australians wanted to talk about to parliament through the voice.
Davis’s answer: “At this point, virtually every issue.”
Then on July 5, Minister for Indigenous Australians Linda Burney asserted that she “will ask the Voice to consider four main priority areas; health, education, jobs and housing.” Her statement validates these criticisms that the Voice would not be limited to areas of critical importance to Indigenous people but instead would have a remit that goes right across the Board.
If the government had wanted to focus the Voice on Indigenous affairs, or on matters that relate only to Indigenous people or even primarily to Indigenous people, it would have included such qualifications in the words that would be inserted into the Constitution.

Equality of Citizenship​

In the referendum we are being asked to constitutionalise a race-based lobby group, paid for by taxpayers, that could involve itself not just in debates on Indigenous affairs, but in debates about all matters of public policy, all proposed laws and all administrative decisions.
It will be empowered to make representations that reach into the executive branch of government, and not just the parliament.
The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice may make representations to theParliament and the ExecutiveGovernment of the Commonwealth on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples
-Proposed section 129(ii)
That extended scope means we are being asked to constitutionalise a system of racial preference. Extending the jurisdiction of the Voice beyond Indigenous affairs, as proposed by the government, cannot be reconciled with the idea that all Australians should be equal not just before the law, but before those who make the law and those who apply the law.
It would give one group of Australians an entitlement to additional and unjustified influence over all public policy, all law making and all public administration.

Click here to read all of Chris’ commentary on the Voice

Consider what this country would look like if this referendum succeeds. Those with the right genetic inheritance – and their descendants for all time – would gain an additional method of influencing politicians and officials that would surpass the normal rights of citizenship. The Voice would be empowered to make race-based representations about all areas of public administration and all new laws. Public servants would be in a truly dreadful position. Instead of making decisions according to law and the instructions of their superiors, they would need to consider representations from an institution of state whose only purpose would be to inject racial preference into public administration. Every federal minister and every decision maker in the federal public service could be at risk unless they inform the Voice before making decisions, provide information about matters awaiting decision, wait for a response from the Voice and generate a paper trail showing the views of the Voice have been considered. How much information will ministers and public servants be required to give the voice about decisions they propose to make? How long would ministers and public servants need to wait while the voice considers its position?
As Paul Kelly, Editor-at-Large of the Australian newspaper recently said
“The Voice contradicts the principle of equality of citizenship that enshrines and binds together our nation. The Voice is based on the principle that we have different constitutional rights depending on our ancestry. We need to think about that as a country. And think whether or not we really want that to happen. The Voice contradicts the principle of equality of citizenship that enshrines and binds together our nation…
This is a change in the Constitution that, being realistic, would be forever.
What will that mean for the unity of our country?”
Racial preference never ends well.
Equality of citizenship is fundamental to what it means to live in a democracy.
It is reinforced by the fact that the source of Australian sovereignty is the people of this nation – all of them, regardless of race or national origin, and regardless of whether they arrived yesterday or have antecedents who arrived 60,000 years ago. If you believe everyone should be equal in the eyes of the law and in the eyes of those who make and administer the law, this referendum must be rejected.

Voice- The Case for Voting NO | Rule of Law Education Centre

www.ruleoflaw.org.au

They've done a good job by actually using yes activists comments to show how this is a Trojan Horse for what comes next. We just don't know what's going to pop out of it. Well, some of us can imagine, including those who have worked on the Uluru Statement and who will most likely get a seat at the Voice table. Comrade Mayo(r) is going to be particular trouble.

 

[TimeISmoney]

All you have done with that reply is compound your lie. I suggest you come up with better evidence as your claim was very different.

I'm not going to post anything that identifies kids or schools that may open them up to bullying and or racial taunts if you don't believe me that's Ok because I don't care.

I suggest you go back and read my comments carefully.
It's a fact there was bipartisan support.
It's a fact Dutton, with a proven poor history of intolerance of indigenous issues, reneged on that.
It's also a fact that I have stated in this thread that I did not believe the "yes" vote would get up.
So again, none of your claims are accurate.

You seem incapable of distinguishing radical comments from real world practicalities.
If you think I am wrong, show where Mayo's ideas have been reflected in anything at all being put to government or being put to the referendum?

Mayor was the brainchild poster boy behind the whole Ularu statement, also another radicalist ivolved was Teale Reiad and it's funny how you only see these maxist commo sympathisers activists types that have more wealth than your average Australian as the public face of the voice and the most to gain from it all financially, you hardly ever see or hear the voice of people that have grown up in communities and really done it tough. Mayor is never going to be too far behind all of this movement pulling the strings, the government can say whatever it wants to.

Where has the government or anyone else for that fact deeply involved with the voice commented about who will be on this board? You're telling me that a group that held a nationwide convention about the uluru statement that leads to the Voice, can't tell anyone who will be involved in this board or even the workings of it, until after it's been enshrined into the constitution? That would be akin to giving a builder the go ahead to build a house without signing a contract that has drafting plans and then the builder saying trust me I'll give you what you want.

When you see the questions asked, all you get is a different story of possibilities from every politician and when they get pressed for individual details they shrug their shoulders. This is only one part of why I wouldn't vote for it, the ideal behind the voice is plain and simply discriminatory, you're giving one group special powers that others don't have.

 

[TimeISmoney]

View attachment 159932

Hahah! They won't let the truth get in the way of a good story.

 

[rederob]

View attachment 159932

You must be joined at the hip to @JohnDe who can only copypaste, and never explains how his points are valid.
You should send me your address so I can send you that dictionary.

 

[TimeISmoney]

Your "someone" happens to be a significant number of indigenous people that have been failed by governments since colonisation, and their levels of disadvantage quantified in Closing the Gap reports.
I personally find your "motherhood" statements to be lame excuses for not coming to grips with the need for a new approach to remedying our national disgrace of failed indigenous policies.

You don't think it has something to do with school truancy?

 

[rederob]

I'm not going to post anything that identifies kids or schools that may open them up to bullying and or racial taunts if you don't believe me that's Ok because I don't care.

There was no need to lie and not show evidence that supported your claim.

Mayor was the brainchild poster boy behind the whole Ularu statement,

That's arrant nonsense.
It was a result of the Referendum Council's work which held a National First Nations Constitutional Convention at Uluru to ratify the decision making of the Regional Dialogues which they conducted.

Where has the government or anyone else for that fact deeply involved with the voice commented about who will be on this board?

There will be an election for members, as many times explained here.
Is there a reason you refuse to educate yourself and continue to make baseless comments?

When you see the questions asked, all you get is a different story of possibilities from every politician and when they get pressed for individual details they shrug their shoulders.

Voice proponents have consistently stated that matters of detail must be left to the Parliament, as no matter what could be said, it would always be within its power to determine.

This is only one part of why I wouldn't vote for it, the ideal behind the voice is plain and simply discriminatory, you're giving one group special powers that others don't have.

Why don't you tell us about this "special power" given nobody who understands this matter has any idea how it could exist.

 

[Sean K]

Where has the government or anyone else for that fact deeply involved with the voice commented about who will be on this board? You're telling me that a group that held a nationwide convention about the uluru statement that leads to the Voice, can't tell anyone who will be involved in this board or even the workings of it, until after it's been enshrined into the constitution? That would be akin to giving a builder the go ahead to build a house without signing a contract that has drafting plans and then the builder saying trust me I'll give you what you want.

I'll give you a few names who will be on the Voice board: Langton, Mayo(r), Pearson, Reid, Thorpe, Pascoe Davis, Clark

 

[rederob]

I'll give you a few names who will be on the Voice board: Langton, Mayo(r), Pearson, Reid, Thorpe, Pascoe Davis, Clark

Keep up the lies, deception and misinformation as it continues to shine a light on the type of people who do not want to see indigenous people active in their advancement.

 

[JohnDe]

You must be joined at the hip to @JohnDe who can only copypaste, and never explains how his points are valid.
You should send me your address so I can send you that dictionary.

What is narcissism?​

Narcissism is a mental condition characterized by an exaggerated and excessive sense of self-importance and a constant preoccupation with one’s needs alone with little to no regard for others. People with this disorder are known as narcissists and they feel superior and more important than others because of the façade of self-worth they have attached to themselves. This disorder can cause problems in many areas of a narcissist’s life, in their relationships, at work, school, or even financially. Narcissists are usually unhappy and unsatisfied when they are not given the level of admiration or aggravation they think they deserve. They may get into relationships just because it matches their aesthetic or it soothes their ego.

Symptoms of Narcissistic personality disorder​

The level or severity of the signs of a narcissist and symptoms of the disorder vary. However, these are a few narcissistic traits common in people with the disorder:

• Inability to handle criticism. Narcissists can be easily offended when they are not given the special treatment they believe they deserve. They can react with so much anger that outweighs the problem itself.
• They are unable to regulate their emotions and can easily get depressed or stressed from rejection.
• They subtly struggle with insecurities and vulnerabilities that they tend to try to rub off on others.
• They want to be recognized and treated as superiors without any achievements that require that.
• They are preoccupied with unrealistic fantasies about power, brilliance, or the idea of a perfect mate.
• They exhibit arrogance and haughty behaviors. They are conceited, boastful, and pretentious about everything.
• They have no empathy and take advantage of other people to get special treatment or favors. They talk down on others just to feel a sense of superiority.

Overt Narcissism

This type of narcissistic behavior is constituted by an extreme sense of self-worth and inflated self-esteem. People with this overt narcissism are exploitative in interpersonal relationships. They want to exert social dominance and assertiveness that they are not worthy of. They are shameless with a sense of entitlement due to their feelings of superiority.

How Narcissistic Personality disorder is diagnosed?​

Doctors and mental health professionals use the criteria from a text published by the American Psychiatric Association to diagnose mental health conditions such as this one. The title of this text is “Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th edition, text revision (DSM-5-TR)”. The diagnostic criteria for diagnosing Narcissistic personality disorder is by looking out for certain traits which are:

• the person has an exaggerated sense of self-importance and an inflated level of entitlement
• they constantly need admiration and praise
• they are always expecting special treatment due to their self-perception of superiority
• they are always exaggerating their achievements
• they have explosive or negative reactions to criticism
• they are mostly preoccupied with fantasies of power and success
• they take advantage of other people and are unwilling or unable to recognize the needs and emotions of others around them
• they behave arrogantly without regard for others

Narcissistic Disorder -Australia Counselling Directory

Narcissistic Disorder: Symptoms, Effects and Treatment

www.australiacounselling.com.au

 

[Sean K]

Keep up the lies, deception and misinformation as it continues to shine a light on the type of people who do not want to see indigenous people active in their advancement.

Your assumption that no voters don't want 'indigenous people active in their advancement' is disgusting.

 

[TimeISmoney]

That's arrant nonsense.
It was a result of the Referendum Council's work which held a National First Nations Constitutional Convention at Uluru to ratify the decision making of the Regional Dialogues which they conducted.

Mayor was one of the Co-chair of the Uluru working group, he certainly was involved with it at the top level, you can even see much of the parody of all the secrecy and making some other indigenous groups not inclusive with the workings of it, much like how most unions work, but it's funny how everyone wants to disassociate themselves from him now.

There will be an election for members, as many times explained here.
Is there a reason you refuse to educate yourself and continue to make baseless comments?

I would want to know exactly who are the people that are going to represent in this body before I put any type of pass vote to it, and are they going to do criminal checks as they do standard for any public service worker? Is there going to be adequate funding for these people to do their job or too much? There's already a lot of disagreement about the power these people can have, you can't expect that every Aussie is a dumb bogan and is going to vote on a simple matter of just helping disadvantaged people. How many times have governments said trust me and people have ended up with the raw end of the stick? If it doesn't matter to the government the questions I ask, then my vote doesn't matter to them.

Voice proponents have consistently stated that matters of detail must be left to the Parliament, as no matter what could be said, it would always be within its power to determine.

Why don't you tell us about this "special power" given nobody who understands this matter has any idea how it could exist.

What other minority groups have an enshrined advocacy body in the constitution? If you don't have any clear advantage point from it then why do it in the first place? Round and round we go again.

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

Any date yet ?

gg

 

[rederob]

Your assumption that no voters don't want 'indigenous people active in their advancement' is disgusting.

Given the Voice provides the opportunity that "no" voters would prevent, your point is disingenuous at best.
You offer nothing but lies, deception and disinformation, and like some here have no capacity to show otherwise.

 

[Sean K]

Given the Voice provides the opportunity that "no" voters would prevent, your point is disingenuous at best.
You offer nothing but lies, deception and disinformation, and like some here have no capacity to show otherwise.

The Voice provides nothing more than what already exists in regards to closing the gap. What is the other 'opportunity' that the Voice provides?

You've now said "lies, deception and disinformation" a couple of times in regards to my comments, but I think it's only in regards to me posting up quotes from the yes activists, or that a few of the architects of the Voice will end up being part of the Voice body. Is that it? That's lies, deception and disinformation?

 

[IFocus]

Didn't quote her. Please stop lying. She provided a bunch of quotes of yes activists.

Got no idea what your second point is other than Craven actually said what he said.

You posted it… lying?

Lying while on the subject would be quoting people out context Craven has made that very clear.

Your Coalition apologist would know that unfortunately credibility has never been one of her traits

 

[Sean K]

You posted it… lying?

Lying while on the subject would be quoting people out context Craven has made that very clear.

Your Coalition apologist would know that unfortunately credibility has never been one of her traits

I'm pretty sure that was a Craven quote. Please stop lying.

 

[Sean K]

Let's get this straight, Craven said it, word for word, and since he lost out on adjusting the Voice wording he decided to get behind it 100% because he thought it was "just". He "lost on the drafting".

A simple google finds it on their ABC.