One of them might speak out of turn: WA mayors pan PM for not visiting troubled regional towns.
-
Latest Posts
- Safely assume the danger of criticism won’t make him nervous
- Uncle Sam is no substitute for Peter but he has a bigger budget
- Seven Little Australians
- On the upside, it is safe for Chinamen
- Misinformation: ABC labels a nationwide war on Jews ‘protests’
- Bunyip Berias
- As unanswered invasion and destruction of Britain continues…
-
Recent Comments
-
TCL Archive
- April 2024 (90)
- March 2024 (115)
- February 2024 (113)
- January 2024 (122)
- December 2023 (89)
- November 2023 (88)
- October 2023 (100)
- September 2023 (84)
- August 2023 (74)
- July 2023 (89)
- June 2023 (81)
- May 2023 (88)
- April 2023 (90)
- March 2023 (118)
- February 2023 (84)
- January 2023 (101)
- December 2022 (62)
- November 2022 (72)
- October 2022 (83)
- September 2022 (81)
- August 2022 (82)
- July 2022 (83)
- June 2022 (113)
- May 2022 (80)
- April 2022 (114)
- March 2022 (117)
- February 2022 (120)
- January 2022 (126)
- December 2021 (116)
- November 2021 (112)
- October 2021 (126)
- September 2021 (84)
- August 2021 (6)
-
Post Categories
- Art, music, letters
- Australian police state
- Climate hoax
- Culture and society
- Defence and national security
- Economics and business
- Education
- Elections
- Ethics and morality
- Fake conservatism
- Fake news
- Fake science
- Federal politics
- Foreign affairs and diplomacy
- General
- History
- International
- Left-wing extremism
- Left-wing hypocrisy
- Legal affairs
- Media
- Politics and governance
- Religion and faith
- Rule of law
- Science and technology
- Social media
- Sport
- State politics
- US politics
- War and peace
- War on Christianity
- Whatever
Where will that $2000 per head money go? ALP or gummint coffers?
‘Optics’ again.
He’d look pretty stupid raving on about the Voice in front of desperately poor, genuine Aborigines in a red dirt town. Albanese is getting smaller and smaller by the week.
He’s Good Old Albo when on tour; he’s a nasty, sneaky hater and divider back in Canberra. And his signature is that he hasn’t got a clue about the finer points.
Fair suck of the sav. The Pride Piper has far more important matters at hand – like the Indigenous Voice – than be concerned about indigenous people.
Like a schizophrenic puppet, Albanese doesn’t want to listen to the people actually affected by or mired in the dysfunction of remote indigenous communities. He is compelled to listen to the Voice, a group of hand-selected elitists all reading from the same pre-approved playbook. Enshrining this in the constitution will enable him to call out anyone not adhering to the pre-approved narrative a racist and prevent any future government from dismantling his narrative enforcement mechanism without a referendum. It also will open a new front in the long-going lawfare campaign to erode the rights of average Australians.
The great irony in all this is that none of the apparatus that has enabled the lawfare campaign would have been possible without the 1967 referendum that enabled the government to make laws for indigenous people. Prior to that, they were in charge of their own welfare.
👏
Buccaneer
Old son, you make the mistake so commonly made by Voice critics ( although all power to them). All that the amendment to the Constitution would do is to create an obligation to listen to – and perhaps, at the discretion of the High Court, to consult – with some Aboriginal person(s).
The narrative enforcement mechanism to which you refer would be established by an Act passed in the usual way (simple majority) by both houses of parliament. Therein lies a significant political problem for a non-Labor/Greens government, but amendment bu referendum would not be required.
And when gummint has listened to them, despite it being complete nonsense and just invented in a room somewhere, “Aborigines will be adversely impacted by the mine/farm/road/shopping centre so it shouldn’t proceed on that site” they have a choice of ignoring it or use it as an excuse to proceed or not. And that will depend on whether it suits the union and/or ALP controlled business. If any of the recommendations put forward by ATSIC or any organisation since there would be tangible improvements. But there aren’t.
How has all the sucking up to Aborigines, which has now become unashamed Aboriginal worship, worked out? Aboriginal flags flying on government flag poles, Aboriginal flag replacing the state flag on the harbour bridge, Aboriginal flags positioned behind government ministers, a Prime Ministerial apology for something that never happened, Welcome to Country ceremonies, mouthing “respect to Elders” prayers, ‘First Nation’ ambassadors, indigenous football rounds, taking a knee to BLM, allowing Aborigines to march during Covid Lockdowns, Aboriginal only courts delivering softer sentencing, and not to forget, spending over $30,000,000,000 annually to support them.
Well, the disfunction in Aboriginal communities has increased along with the demands by the ‘First Nation’ urban elite. Something needs to change and it’s not the ‘Voice’.
The reality is that we all know that no government in the future will likely have control of both houses in order to repeal whatever they setup in terms of composition.
The real kick in this is that they now have a free hand to be able to write whatever they want into this legislation with the current numbers, so they could write in pretty much anything and a future government would need a majority in both houses to overturn it. They will still need a referendum to get it out of the constitution.
Given how little the media reports on the dysfunction in indigenous communities now, can you truthfully tell me that they will report faithfully on the failure of the voice to inform the general population should it fail in future?
Buccaneer
I nodded to the reality in my last sentence. I thought a person as perspicacious as your goodself would have picked this up. Anyway, you have helpfully spelt it out.
But, even today, given the quite probable and not so far in the future emergence of other kinds of groups and alliances in the Senate, (1) a Labor government might find that a non-Labor leaning alliance controlled the Senate, and (2) that in addition, such an alliance could deploy its numbers in the House of Reps so as to create or support a non-Labor government.
Moreover, a Labor government might, in the face of dysfunction in the Voice, and/or ATSIC level corruption, radically restructure the functions and operation of the Voice.
My point is that there is a very significant difference between a Voice structure entrenched in the Constitution (which is not being proposed), and one created by a statute.
Just to be clear. All that would be in the Constitution is as I described in my first post. One might expect the High Court would say that the person(s) who give advice must have some means to do so, but this could well be satisfied by the current channels of dispersed communication.
So, about 20% of aborigines and part-aborigines are 100% totally f’cked up due to living in remote areas….or else due to self-destructive lifestyle choices. Nearly all of this 20% go back and forth between shyte-holes and gaol until they die…..early.
The other 80% are totally integrated into Australian society….most of whom no-one even knows they have some tiny Aboriginal heritage. Of these some miniscule % are the elites doing ALL the shrieking. Many in this tiny group are also most-likely total frauds, with no Aboriginal heritage at all. Think Lidia Thorpe or Megan Davis (google her if she doesn’t ring a bell) not willing to take a DNA test, but with some Maltese or Moroccan or Tongan background to make them just that bit dusky enough to play the roles required.
I have little understanding for why anyone worries about these loudmouths since the referendum will be absolutely crushed by the no vote.
BTW: There are said to be about 700-800,000 Aussies claiming Aboriginal heritage. Of these only 250 made the cut to be at Uluru for the Shriek. That’s one in three thousand. That’s how few are actively participating in this freak show. That’s all they’ve got.: 0.03% acting up like the usual drunkards on Saturday night.
2nd BTW: How many WERE drunk the whole three days at Uluru?
Rafiki. Lotsa obfuscation in your posts.
There are already thousands of govt-funded aboriginal Voices….all of whom appear to not be being listened to….since the $30 billion bucks (that’s just the dedicated dough) has had NO IMPACT on improving Aboriginal lives…..they claim.
How will these already-totally- failed Voices get anything new out of a referendum success? They already give advice 24/7, so what’s the Big Idea behind this latest ruse?
BTW: The 250 self-anointed and self-appointed Big Men and Big Women who got 3 days of govt-paid partying at Uluru…were elected by which other Aborigines?
So why do it all, Rafiki?
To be frank about it, because dancing around the point really does us no good, would a future coalition government actually face the shrieking elitist mendacious caste down were they to win that majority?
I’m pretty confident, I can say right now, they would not stridently step up to the plate and remove the privilege of one section of the community over another from the constitution by removing the actual mechanism or even toning it down. They would magnanimously declare they had more important business with which to attend, in a vain effort to present the smallest possible target to the amassed leftist propaganda machine that constantly bullies them into inaction.
This is partly because a number of them will line up to bask in the squalid glory of victory in the event this gets up, thereby ensuring they never have to engage in an actual argument.
We can also be certain, that some interest group would take a government that tried to amend the legislation to court, regardless of the merit or otherwise of the argument they were making.
We can only hope. I for one, have learnt to never underestimate the gullibility and stupidity of Australians.
I don’t think we should pass this referendum proposal, as is clear enough from my first post where I wished all power to the Voice critics. One reason is, as Petros suggests, because we don’t need it.
Buccaneer: suppose the Voice statute creates a structure that, like ATSIC was, is corrupted. Public opinion behind it, a non-Labor government with Senate backing, could easily amend the structure in a way that would not be found invalid by the High Court. A new structure (which would not need to be called the “Voice” ) could build on existing Aboriginal organisations.
I do think the Constitution should recognise that Aboriginal peoples were in occupation of the land prior to its acquisition by the Crown.
Rafiki, I posted the proposed wording in the constitution above, regardless of the changes to the legislation personnel, intent, whatever, it will still be called the voice.
I have significant issues in having one racial group named in the constitution and not any other. For a good part of our history, indigenous people didn’t want to be governed by what they called white mans law. Now they want to be named in the document that underpins the creation of our laws with seemingly special treatment.
One would need to ignore decades of dedicated law fare to think that voting for a change to the constitution with no detail as to what it engenders will be a benign change that does not advance that agenda further than the admitted extent.
After reading all the recent comments, I was almost persuaded by
“…the Constitution should recognise that Aboriginal peoples were in occupation of the land prior to its acquisition by the Crown”.
Goodwill is very appealing.
But no. It’s a reminder of that particular reasonableness of Ms Burney’s pitch.
Cloaked in a plea for goodwill, a benign change would not be the goal.
The generosity already shown to the Aboriginal peoples has not been acknowledged.
I think it’s interesting that occupation is a different term that’s the one used in the welcome to country worshipping that seems mandatory across the country, what happened to original custodians of the land?
I will add, I might vote for Frank Brennan’s proposal, if it dropped the words ‘and other such functions as the parliament determines’. https://www.2gb.com/can-the-voice-be-rescued-father-frank-brennan-enters-the-debate/
An interesting discussion on all this here https://www.eurekastreet.com.au/article/an-indigenous-voice–truth–treaty-and-reconciliation