Really schit me to tears.  Have a look at this Jacinta Price.  From about the 18 minute mark, Spears was pushing her and she was dodging. 

Finally, at the 20.12 mark, she asserts that the Police have been notified of this smokey abuse she was previous referencing in vague terms, saying that other non victims have told her stuff.

Link.

Now, let's hear from the Cops!

Link.

Lying bitch, just like that prick Dutton.


Quote:

Appearing on the ABC's Insiders program on Sunday morning, Jacinta Nampijinpa Price said she "assumes" the allegations of child sexual abuse have already been reported to police. Senator Price was asked numerous times whether she or Mr Dutton reported the allegations of abuse to police, under mandatory reporting requirements in the Northern Territory. "We're not stupid — Peter Dutton is a former policeman, he knows what needs to be done," Senator Price said. Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price says she has been been approached by many foster parents who are deeply concerned about the care of vulnerable Indigenous children. When pushed again, she insisted the reporting process "had been done". "Well, if that's what [the territory's Department of Families] know about them, I'm assuming that they have reported that," she said. Ms Worden said she has heard "crickets" from the Coalition pair over the matter. "If they want to make allegations like that, they need to come forward with evidence … you can't just claim these things and then walk away," Ms Worden said. "This is classic 'drop a bomb and walk away' [scenario]." Alice Springs child sexual abuse claims Some dismiss claims about rampant child abuse in the outback town as exaggerated, but others say welfare responses are inadequate and children are falling through the cracks. The peak body for the care of Aboriginal and Islander children — the Secretariat of Aboriginal and Islander Child Care (SNAICC) — have refuted the claims that child abuse cases in Alice Springs are rampant and accused Mr Dutton of using the topic as a "political football". The federal government also called for the Mr Dutton to report any information he has about claims of child sexual abuse in Alice Springs to police and urged him not to make "irresponsible accusations" if they could not be followed up with evidence.

Just like our resident fuqwit Boris.  Full of loud noises but he has nothing.

If there are kids being abused, these arseholes are NOT productive by failing to provide EVIDENCE, and instead they are playing politics with a very important issue.

THEY, the "Duttons," the "Prices" are fuqqing it up...idiots.

Until today, I had no interest in Price but she now has my interest.  She is a 'blak' hack, repeating the Party line handed out in the Party room on a bit of paper which has three points of principle on the LNP approach to The Voice.

One was "let's have local Voices."

Price pushed that line with Spears.  He did not fall for it, and pushed back asking how the 'local Voice' would be channeled into Canberra.

Price was left looking like the idiot she truly is.

Fuq her.

>:(

Aussie wrote on Apr 16^th, 2023 at 6:48pm:

Really schit me to tears.  Have a look at this Jacinta Price.  From about the 18 minute mark, Spears was pushing her and she was dodging.  Finally, at the 20.12 mark, she asserts that the Police have been notified of this smokey abuse she was previous referencing in vague terms, saying that other non victims have told her stuff. Link. Now, let's hear from the Cops! Link. Lying bitch, just like that prick Dutton. Quote: Appearing on the ABC's Insiders program on Sunday morning, Jacinta Nampijinpa Price said she "assumes" the allegations of child sexual abuse have already been reported to police. Senator Price was asked numerous times whether she or Mr Dutton reported the allegations of abuse to police, under mandatory reporting requirements in the Northern Territory. "We're not stupid — Peter Dutton is a former policeman, he knows what needs to be done," Senator Price said. Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price says she has been been approached by many foster parents who are deeply concerned about the care of vulnerable Indigenous children. When pushed again, she insisted the reporting process "had been done". "Well, if that's what [the territory's Department of Families] know about them, I'm assuming that they have reported that," she said. Ms Worden said she has heard "crickets" from the Coalition pair over the matter. "If they want to make allegations like that, they need to come forward with evidence … you can't just claim these things and then walk away," Ms Worden said. "This is classic 'drop a bomb and walk away' [scenario]." Alice Springs child sexual abuse claims Some dismiss claims about rampant child abuse in the outback town as exaggerated, but others say welfare responses are inadequate and children are falling through the cracks. The peak body for the care of Aboriginal and Islander children — the Secretariat of Aboriginal and Islander Child Care (SNAICC) — have refuted the claims that child abuse cases in Alice Springs are rampant and accused Mr Dutton of using the topic as a "political football". The federal government also called for the Mr Dutton to report any information he has about claims of child sexual abuse in Alice Springs to police and urged him not to make "irresponsible accusations" if they could not be followed up with evidence. Just like our resident fuqwit Boris.  Full of loud noises but he has nothing. If there are kids being abused, these arseholes are NOT productive by failing to provide EVIDENCE, and instead they are playing politics with a very important issue. THEY, the "Duttons," the "Prices" are fuqqing it up...idiots. Until today, I had no interest in Price but she now has my interest.  She is a 'blak' hack, repeating the Party line handed out in the Party room on a bit of paper which has three points of principle on the LNP approach to The Voice. One was "let's have local Voices." Price pushed that line with Spears.  He did not fall for it, and pushed back asking how the 'local Voice' would be channeled into Canberra. Price was left looking like the idiot she truly is. Fuq her. >:(

Taxi! Taxi! Take this idiot Arsie to the detox station. He's OD-ed on stupid bastardry again.






Child abuse and neglect is being reported to authorities in the Northern Territory at almost five times the rate of any other Australian jurisdiction.

The latest available data from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare shows 95.5 children per 1000 in the NT were the subject of an investigation or notification to child protection services in 2020/2021.

The state with the next highest rate was New South Wales where there were 23.5 investigations or notifications per 1000 children.  In Tasmania there were just 6.7 notifications or investigations per 1000 children.

For children aged under one, there were 63.8 NT children per 1000 who were the subject of a substantiated notification.  The national average was 16.6.

For all children aged 0-17 the rate of substantiated abuse and neglect per 1000 children in the NT was 26.  The national average was 8.8.
https://www.skynews.com.au/australia-news/child-abuse-in-the-northern-territory-almost-five-times-higher-than-any-other-australian-jurisdiction-new-data-shows/news-story/839a4e9347147d9470657c9bc2a40dcb


https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/child-protection/child-protection-australia-2020-21/contents/notifications-investigations-and-substantiations/characteristics-of-children-with-substantiated-abuse-or-neglect

ohh look, sore end is deflecting to hide the fact that Mr potato and the lying cow are full of it :D :D

Aussie wrote on Apr 16^th, 2023 at 6:48pm:

Really schit me to tears.  Have a look at this Jacinta Price.  From about the 18 minute mark, Spears was pushing her and she was dodging.  Finally, at the 20.12 mark, she asserts that the Police have been notified of this smokey abuse she was previous referencing in vague terms, saying that other non victims have told her stuff. Link. Now, let's hear from the Cops! Link. Lying bitch, just like that prick Dutton. Quote: Appearing on the ABC's Insiders program on Sunday morning, Jacinta Nampijinpa Price said she "assumes" the allegations of child sexual abuse have already been reported to police. Senator Price was asked numerous times whether she or Mr Dutton reported the allegations of abuse to police, under mandatory reporting requirements in the Northern Territory. "We're not stupid — Peter Dutton is a former policeman, he knows what needs to be done," Senator Price said. Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price says she has been been approached by many foster parents who are deeply concerned about the care of vulnerable Indigenous children. When pushed again, she insisted the reporting process "had been done". "Well, if that's what [the territory's Department of Families] know about them, I'm assuming that they have reported that," she said. Ms Worden said she has heard "crickets" from the Coalition pair over the matter. "If they want to make allegations like that, they need to come forward with evidence … you can't just claim these things and then walk away," Ms Worden said. "This is classic 'drop a bomb and walk away' [scenario]." Alice Springs child sexual abuse claims Some dismiss claims about rampant child abuse in the outback town as exaggerated, but others say welfare responses are inadequate and children are falling through the cracks. The peak body for the care of Aboriginal and Islander children — the Secretariat of Aboriginal and Islander Child Care (SNAICC) — have refuted the claims that child abuse cases in Alice Springs are rampant and accused Mr Dutton of using the topic as a "political football". The federal government also called for the Mr Dutton to report any information he has about claims of child sexual abuse in Alice Springs to police and urged him not to make "irresponsible accusations" if they could not be followed up with evidence. Just like our resident fuqwit Boris.  Full of loud noises but he has nothing. If there are kids being abused, these arseholes are NOT productive by failing to provide EVIDENCE, and instead they are playing politics with a very important issue. THEY, the "Duttons," the "Prices" are fuqqing it up...idiots. Until today, I had no interest in Price but she now has my interest.  She is a 'blak' hack, repeating the Party line handed out in the Party room on a bit of paper which has three points of principle on the LNP approach to The Voice. One was "let's have local Voices." Price pushed that line with Spears.  He did not fall for it, and pushed back asking how the 'local Voice' would be channeled into Canberra. Price was left looking like the idiot she truly is. Fuq her. >:(

And yet a few months earlier the same abc.net.au reported this 👇

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-01-26/alice-springs-nt-crime-alcohol-restrictions/101891270

As you read the shocking article - don’t forget to take a look at the percentage increase in the figures stated.

And as regards political footballing etc ... EVERY stakeholder in this tragic out of control situation is passing the responsibility onto someone else. Right now it’s the turn of the NT cops and their Minister to pass the ball on.

Lisa Jones wrote on Apr 17^th, 2023 at 1:42pm:

Aussie wrote on Apr 16th, 2023 at 6:48pm: Really schit me to tears.  Have a look at this Jacinta Price.  From about the 18 minute mark, Spears was pushing her and she was dodging.  Finally, at the 20.12 mark, she asserts that the Police have been notified of this smokey abuse she was previous referencing in vague terms, saying that other non victims have told her stuff. Link. Now, let's hear from the Cops! Link. Lying bitch, just like that prick Dutton. Quote: Appearing on the ABC's Insiders program on Sunday morning, Jacinta Nampijinpa Price said she "assumes" the allegations of child sexual abuse have already been reported to police. Senator Price was asked numerous times whether she or Mr Dutton reported the allegations of abuse to police, under mandatory reporting requirements in the Northern Territory. "We're not stupid — Peter Dutton is a former policeman, he knows what needs to be done," Senator Price said. Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price says she has been been approached by many foster parents who are deeply concerned about the care of vulnerable Indigenous children. When pushed again, she insisted the reporting process "had been done". "Well, if that's what [the territory's Department of Families] know about them, I'm assuming that they have reported that," she said. Ms Worden said she has heard "crickets" from the Coalition pair over the matter. "If they want to make allegations like that, they need to come forward with evidence … you can't just claim these things and then walk away," Ms Worden said. "This is classic 'drop a bomb and walk away' [scenario]." Alice Springs child sexual abuse claims Some dismiss claims about rampant child abuse in the outback town as exaggerated, but others say welfare responses are inadequate and children are falling through the cracks. The peak body for the care of Aboriginal and Islander children — the Secretariat of Aboriginal and Islander Child Care (SNAICC) — have refuted the claims that child abuse cases in Alice Springs are rampant and accused Mr Dutton of using the topic as a "political football". The federal government also called for the Mr Dutton to report any information he has about claims of child sexual abuse in Alice Springs to police and urged him not to make "irresponsible accusations" if they could not be followed up with evidence. Just like our resident fuqwit Boris.  Full of loud noises but he has nothing. If there are kids being abused, these arseholes are NOT productive by failing to provide EVIDENCE, and instead they are playing politics with a very important issue. THEY, the "Duttons," the "Prices" are fuqqing it up...idiots. Until today, I had no interest in Price but she now has my interest.  She is a 'blak' hack, repeating the Party line handed out in the Party room on a bit of paper which has three points of principle on the LNP approach to The Voice. One was "let's have local Voices." Price pushed that line with Spears.  He did not fall for it, and pushed back asking how the 'local Voice' would be channeled into Canberra. Price was left looking like the idiot she truly is. Fuq her. >:( And yet a few months earlier the same abc.net.au reported this 👇 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-01-26/alice-springs-nt-crime-alcohol-restrictions/101891270 As you read the shocking article - don’t forget to take a look at the percentage increase in the figures stated. And as regards political footballing etc ... EVERY stakeholder in this tragic out of control situation is passing the responsibility onto someone else. Right now it’s the turn of the NT cops and their Minister to pass the ball on.

Dutton and Price were grandstanding on child sexual abuse.  That ABC thing you cited was about alcohol restrictions.

The basic point it that Price is making a big deal about alleged rampant sexual abuse of kids and when asked and finally cornered she whimpered that it had been reported to Cops...yet the Cop Boss says that is bullshit.

Fuq Price.  She is a lying cheap political whore, Dutton's convenient "Auntie" Tom.

Aussie wrote on Apr 17^th, 2023 at 2:30pm:

yet the Cop Boss says that is bullshit.

A politician partly responsible for this mess and wholey responsible for policing it, trying to save her own arse.

Setanta wrote on Apr 17^th, 2023 at 2:54pm:

Aussie wrote on Apr 17th, 2023 at 2:30pm: yet the Cop Boss says that is bullshit. A politician partly responsible for this mess and wholey responsible for policing it, trying to save her own arse.

Pretty easy to see who the liars are, I reckon.

Aussie wrote on Apr 16^th, 2023 at 6:48pm:

One was "let's have local Voices."

Well, she hit the nail on the head.

It's the mistake all new first-world nations' people make about their respective indigenous - that they're all one people of one mindset.

It's the mistake made in NZ about the Maori and the peoples of Pacifica and in the US about native Americans (north and south), and the Canadians about the native peoples of Canada, and by most of the world about the peoples of Africa.

Aussie wrote on Apr 17^th, 2023 at 5:27pm:

Setanta wrote on Apr 17th, 2023 at 2:54pm: Aussie wrote on Apr 17th, 2023 at 2:30pm: yet the Cop Boss says that is bullshit. A politician partly responsible for this mess and wholey responsible for policing it, trying to save her own arse. Pretty easy to see who the liars are, I reckon.

Those with something to lose? Those playing down the situation? Those supposed to be in control of the NT like the pollie in charge of the police portfolio??

Aussie wrote on Apr 17^th, 2023 at 5:27pm:

Setanta wrote on Apr 17th, 2023 at 2:54pm: Aussie wrote on Apr 17th, 2023 at 2:30pm: yet the Cop Boss says that is bullshit. A politician partly responsible for this mess and wholey responsible for policing it, trying to save her own arse. Pretty easy to see who the liars are, I reckon.

You are. A very unconvincing liar, Arsie.

It is quite amazing to see how plonking idiots like you are prepared to slander anyone if they are not toeing the Tennis Albo line.
I do not dount Price's seriousness. She has been a senator only for one year. Before that she was a town councillor and for a year, deputy mayor. Her concerns and convictions are not new. A national Voice would be a disaster for for 97% of Australians and totally ineffectual for the 0.6 % that is the 'disadvantaged' Aborigines and totally irrelevant to another 2% that is Aborigines who are doing ok already without it.
The only beneficiaries would the Aboriginal aristocracy that is driving the whole wheeze, aiming for co-sovereignty, treaty,     compo, rent and political power out of all proportion to their contribution to the nation.

MeisterEckhart wrote on Apr 17^th, 2023 at 6:01pm:

Aussie wrote on Apr 16th, 2023 at 6:48pm: One was "let's have local Voices." Well, she hit the nail on the head. It's the mistake all new first-world nations' people make about their respective indigenous - that they're all one people of one mindset. It's the mistake made in NZ about the Maori and the peoples of Pacifica and in the US about native Americans (north and south), and the Canadians about the native peoples of Canada, and by most of the world about the peoples of Africa.

Horseshit.  She regurgitated one of the three points on a bit of paper Dutton had circulated in the Party Room.

What is the point of a local voice if it has no Voice in Canberra?

Frank wrote on Apr 17^th, 2023 at 6:20pm:

Aussie wrote on Apr 17th, 2023 at 5:27pm: Setanta wrote on Apr 17th, 2023 at 2:54pm: Aussie wrote on Apr 17th, 2023 at 2:30pm: yet the Cop Boss says that is bullshit. A politician partly responsible for this mess and wholey responsible for policing it, trying to save her own arse. Pretty easy to see who the liars are, I reckon. You are. A very unconvincing liar, Arsie. It is quite amazing to see how plonking idiots like you are prepared to slander anyone if they are not toeing the Tennis Albo line. I do not dount Price's seriousness. She has been a senator only for one year. Before that she was a town councillor and for a year, deputy mayor. Her concerns and convictions are not new. A national Voice would be a disaster for for 97% of Australians and totally ineffectual for the 0.6 % that is the 'disadvantaged' Aborigines and totally irrelevant to another 2% that is Aborigines who are doing ok already without it. The only beneficiaries would the Aboriginal aristocracy that is driving the whole wheeze, aiming for co-sovereignty, treaty,     compo, rent and political power out of all proportion to their contribution to the nation.

She might be all of that...but she made a huge mistake thinking she could carry the day against Spears who towelled her up so easily.

It made her look like she is a flake...Dutton's "Auntie" Tom.  She is a nobody just like that idiot Thorpe is....they are different ends of the same political rod/crap.

We have to move on.  Nothing done in the past has been a permanent success...so.....for that and other reasons, I am going to vote 'yes,' despite the fact that I know it is all symbolic, but....sometimes symbolism is important. 

This in one such occasion.

This blak bitch can fuq off into Dutton's pocket and stay there.

Aussie wrote on Apr 17^th, 2023 at 6:21pm:

MeisterEckhart wrote on Apr 17th, 2023 at 6:01pm: Aussie wrote on Apr 16th, 2023 at 6:48pm: One was "let's have local Voices." Well, she hit the nail on the head. It's the mistake all new first-world nations' people make about their respective indigenous - that they're all one people of one mindset. It's the mistake made in NZ about the Maori and the peoples of Pacifica and in the US about native Americans (north and south), and the Canadians about the native peoples of Canada, and by most of the world about the peoples of Africa. Horseshit.  She regurgitated one of the three points on a bit of paper Dutton had circulated in the Party Room. What is the point of a local voice if it has no Voice in Canberra?

To make a difference locally, not in Canberra.
D'oh!

Frank wrote on Apr 17^th, 2023 at 6:28pm:

Aussie wrote on Apr 17th, 2023 at 6:21pm: MeisterEckhart wrote on Apr 17th, 2023 at 6:01pm: Aussie wrote on Apr 16th, 2023 at 6:48pm: One was "let's have local Voices." Well, she hit the nail on the head. It's the mistake all new first-world nations' people make about their respective indigenous - that they're all one people of one mindset. It's the mistake made in NZ about the Maori and the peoples of Pacifica and in the US about native Americans (north and south), and the Canadians about the native peoples of Canada, and by most of the world about the peoples of Africa. Horseshit.  She regurgitated one of the three points on a bit of paper Dutton had circulated in the Party Room. What is the point of a local voice if it has no Voice in Canberra? To make a difference locally, not in Canberra. D'oh!

Nothing is gonna happen 'locally' unless Canberra is on board.

This is not a 'Canberra' voice in the sense it will be made up of Canberra based black fellas.

Sure, there has to be lots of black Community opinions gathered community by community and then  those communities, through an organised conduit into Canberra....ie The Voice....that collective opinion can be heard in Canberra.

Nothing in your day will change Sore End.  The Sun will still come up and you can keep being the idiot you always are.  You have nothing to fear.

Aussie wrote on Apr 17^th, 2023 at 6:33pm:

Frank wrote on Apr 17th, 2023 at 6:28pm: Aussie wrote on Apr 17th, 2023 at 6:21pm: MeisterEckhart wrote on Apr 17th, 2023 at 6:01pm: Aussie wrote on Apr 16th, 2023 at 6:48pm: One was "let's have local Voices." Well, she hit the nail on the head. It's the mistake all new first-world nations' people make about their respective indigenous - that they're all one people of one mindset. It's the mistake made in NZ about the Maori and the peoples of Pacifica and in the US about native Americans (north and south), and the Canadians about the native peoples of Canada, and by most of the world about the peoples of Africa. Horseshit.  She regurgitated one of the three points on a bit of paper Dutton had circulated in the Party Room. What is the point of a local voice if it has no Voice in Canberra? To make a difference locally, not in Canberra. D'oh! Nothing is gonna happen 'locally' unless Canberra is on board. This is not a 'Canberra' voice in the sense it will be made up of Canberra based black fellas. Sure, there has to be lots of black Community opinions gathered community by community and then  those communities, through an organised conduit into Canberra....ie The Voice....that collective opinion can be heard in Canberra. Nothing in your day will change Sore End.  The Sun will still come up and you can keep being the idiot you always are.  You have nothing to fear.

Alcoholism, drugs, crime, child neglect, family violence, delinquency in Outer Whoop Whoop ("Proud Whopperooni Country) will never be solved or even alleviated from Canberra.

Only locals taking responsibility for themselves can solve local problems. For Abos just as much as for anyone else.
Canberra has poured untold billions into Aboriginal affairs but if the locals misuse the funds you have the current situation - corruption, party political bickering, arse covering and evasion. Price is a rare exception to that.
I'll be much more guided by her than by some idiotic taxi driver like you or a Italian brickie like Smiff the thick as several planks.

.......and how will the locals let Canberra know about a need...and how will the locals get Canberra to provide some/any funds...or have you forgotten (or likely never knew) that Abo Affairs is a Canberra jurisdiction.

Tell me how 'The Voice' will change your life in any way, Sore end?

Price and Dutton both lied.  That's obvious.

They have no interest in the welfare of others - they only care about their own power, jobs, and bank accounts.

Aussie wrote on Apr 17^th, 2023 at 6:21pm:

MeisterEckhart wrote on Apr 17th, 2023 at 6:01pm: Aussie wrote on Apr 16th, 2023 at 6:48pm: One was "let's have local Voices." Well, she hit the nail on the head. It's the mistake all new first-world nations' people make about their respective indigenous - that they're all one people of one mindset. It's the mistake made in NZ about the Maori and the peoples of Pacifica and in the US about native Americans (north and south), and the Canadians about the native peoples of Canada, and by most of the world about the peoples of Africa. Horseshit.  She regurgitated one of the three points on a bit of paper Dutton had circulated in the Party Room. What is the point of a local voice if it has no Voice in Canberra?

She did not say 'a local voice', she said 'local voices' - you're misquoting - an old lawyer's trick or are you training for politics?

Whose voice will be in Canberra?

Okay....so what is the point of a local voices if they have no Voice in Canberra?

Aussie wrote on Apr 18^th, 2023 at 6:02pm:

Okay....so what is the point of a local voices if they have no Voice in Canberra?

Er.... solving local problems that are not made in Canberra so can't be fixed in Canberra.

Are you competing with Thick-As Gino Smith? What's the prize? Another two short planks?

Frank wrote on Apr 18^th, 2023 at 6:03pm:

Aussie wrote on Apr 18th, 2023 at 6:02pm: Okay....so what is the point of a local voices if they have no Voice in Canberra? Er.... solving local problems that are not made in Canberra so can't be fixed in Canberra. Are you competing with Thick-As Gino Smith? What's the prize? Another two short planks?

Locals in "Worrabinda" can yibba yabba as much as they like.  Canberra ain't gonna hear a thing about it unless there is a dedicated conduit into Canberra.

You never said, Sore End:

Tell me how 'The Voice' will change your life in any way?

Aussie wrote on Apr 17^th, 2023 at 6:56pm:

.......and how will the locals let Canberra know about a need...and how will the locals get Canberra to provide some/any funds...or have you forgotten (or likely never knew) that Abo Affairs is a Canberra jurisdiction. Tell me how 'The Voice' will change your life in any way, Sore end?

Never mind my life, silly Arsie.

How will it change the lives of Aborigines that all the Aboriginal ministries, parliamentarians,  land councils, services, NIAA, support programs, local, regional, state and federal,  haven't been able to?
What is new that only the Voice would be able to do for Aborigines but none of the hundreds of other intervention and support measures have been unable to do?

What the hell have all the Aboriginal affairs departments, stare and federal, have been doing all these decades if not channel Aboriginal voices to governments? What other purpose have they had??

Aussie wrote on Apr 18^th, 2023 at 6:02pm:

Okay....so what is the point of a local voices if they have no Voice in Canberra?

Aww, come on counsellor. You're held to a higher standard. You should know better than to play a failed trick twice.

What's the difference between 'voice' and 'voices'?

Why would someone of Aboriginal heritage choose the plural?

MeisterEckhart wrote on Apr 18^th, 2023 at 6:13pm:

Aussie wrote on Apr 18th, 2023 at 6:02pm: Okay....so what is the point of a local voices if they have no Voice in Canberra? Aww, come on counsellor. You're held to a higher standard. You should know better than to play a failed trick twice. What's the difference between 'voice' and 'voices'? Why would someone of Aboriginal heritage choose the plural?

If you ask the audience, they might enlighten you with American enlightenment-speak - 'e pluribus unum'. Works in new-world immigrant nations and politically advanced Western-style nations.

Tribal peoples have other ideas.

Frank wrote on Apr 18^th, 2023 at 6:09pm:

Aussie wrote on Apr 17th, 2023 at 6:56pm: .......and how will the locals let Canberra know about a need...and how will the locals get Canberra to provide some/any funds...or have you forgotten (or likely never knew) that Abo Affairs is a Canberra jurisdiction. Tell me how 'The Voice' will change your life in any way, Sore end? Never mind my life, silly Arsie. How will it change the lives of Aborigines that all the Aboriginal ministries, parliamentarians,  land councils, services, NIAA, support programs, local, regional, state and federal,  haven't been able to? What is new that only the Voice would be able to do for Aborigines but none of the hundreds of other intervention and support measures have been unable to do? What the hell have all the Aboriginal affairs departments, stare and federal, have been doing all these decades if not channel Aboriginal voices to governments? What other purpose have they had??

Dunno....but the 'gap' is not being 'bridged.'

'The Voice'  might do something about that.  No skin off my nose.

Yours?

MeisterEckhart wrote on Apr 18^th, 2023 at 6:13pm:

Aussie wrote on Apr 18th, 2023 at 6:02pm: Okay....so what is the point of a local voices if they have no Voice in Canberra? Aww, come on counsellor. You're held to a higher standard. You should know better than to play a failed trick twice. What's the difference between 'voice' and 'voices'? Why would someone of Aboriginal heritage choose the plural?

Semantic rubbish.

What is the point of a *local voices (*insert whatever term makes you go gooey at the knee caps*) if they have no Voice (no formal permanent conduit) into Canberra?

Aussie wrote on Apr 18^th, 2023 at 7:18pm:

MeisterEckhart wrote on Apr 18th, 2023 at 6:13pm: Aussie wrote on Apr 18th, 2023 at 6:02pm: Okay....so what is the point of a local voices if they have no Voice in Canberra? Aww, come on counsellor. You're held to a higher standard. You should know better than to play a failed trick twice. What's the difference between 'voice' and 'voices'? Why would someone of Aboriginal heritage choose the plural? Semantic rubbish. What is the point of a *local voices (*insert whatever term makes you go gooey at the knee caps*) if they have no Voice (no formal permanent conduit) into Canberra?

Maybe you're just ignorant.

Tribal peoples don't speak in the singular, even if outsiders think tribal peoples are one because they all look the same.

Fuq me dead!!!!!  I know!  Been there physically, done that.

What is your point?

Aussie wrote on Apr 18^th, 2023 at 7:29pm:

Fuq me dead!!!!!  I know!  Been there physically, done that. What is your point?

Well, if you've been there and dobe that, you'd know that tribal peoples aren't one and don't subscribe to the concept of ethno-nationality.

So, no one voice can speak for aboriginal peoples.

Aussie wrote on Apr 18^th, 2023 at 7:16pm:

Frank wrote on Apr 18th, 2023 at 6:09pm: Aussie wrote on Apr 17th, 2023 at 6:56pm: .......and how will the locals let Canberra know about a need...and how will the locals get Canberra to provide some/any funds...or have you forgotten (or likely never knew) that Abo Affairs is a Canberra jurisdiction. Tell me how 'The Voice' will change your life in any way, Sore end? Never mind my life, silly Arsie. How will it change the lives of Aborigines that all the Aboriginal ministries, parliamentarians,  land councils, services, NIAA, support programs, local, regional, state and federal,  haven't been able to? What is new that only the Voice would be able to do for Aborigines but none of the hundreds of other intervention and support measures have been unable to do? What the hell have all the Aboriginal affairs departments, stare and federal, have been doing all these decades if not channel Aboriginal voices to governments? What other purpose have they had?? Dunno....but the 'gap' is not being 'bridged.' 'The Voice'  might do something about that.  No skin off my nose. Yours?

Oh?

So it's 'dunno, do somefin'. Dunno what, but, just do somefin''.


So stupid, so you Arse. Thick As Gino is jealous of just how stupid you can be.

MeisterEckhart wrote on Apr 18^th, 2023 at 7:39pm:

Aussie wrote on Apr 18th, 2023 at 7:29pm: Fuq me dead!!!!!  I know!  Been there physically, done that. What is your point? Well, if you've been there and dobe that, you'd know that tribal peoples aren't one and don't subscribe to the concept of ethno-nationality. So, no one voice can speak for aboriginal peoples.

Is that similar to no one political party speaks for all Australians? And yet for the most part it still works.... go figure  :D

John Smith wrote on Apr 18^th, 2023 at 7:43pm:

MeisterEckhart wrote on Apr 18th, 2023 at 7:39pm: Aussie wrote on Apr 18th, 2023 at 7:29pm: Fuq me dead!!!!!  I know!  Been there physically, done that. What is your point? Well, if you've been there and dobe that, you'd know that tribal peoples aren't one and don't subscribe to the concept of ethno-nationality. So, no one voice can speak for aboriginal peoples. Is that similar to no one political party speaks for all Australians? And yet for the most part it still works.... go figure  :D

New-world European migrants to a new country lean back on shared European history as their pathway to the enlightenment's 'e pluribus unum'.

Aboriginal peoples never migrated, so, never developed the need to identify as a
singular people.

Meanwhile, back in Europe, two 'peoples' who are as identical as it is possible to be - ethnically, socially, religiously, historically, politically... And yet they're facing off in a genocidal war of attrition.

Go figure.

So was that a 'yes' or a 'no'?

Here's a clue,  you don't need every aboriginal person to agree on every thing for aborigines to  benefit as a whole.  Much like you don't need every pom to agree on everything their representatives do for them to benefit as a society. 

John Smith wrote on Apr 18^th, 2023 at 8:00pm:

So was that a 'yes' or a 'no'? Here's a clue,  you don't need every aboriginal person to agree on every thing for aborigines to  benefit as a whole.  Much like you don't need every pom to agree on everything their representatives do for them to benefit as a society.

Spoken as the European immigrant you are, who has inherited 'e pluribus unum' from his family's experience of emigration from their ethnic homeland.

MeisterEckhart wrote on Apr 18^th, 2023 at 8:04pm:

John Smith wrote on Apr 18th, 2023 at 8:00pm: So was that a 'yes' or a 'no'? Here's a clue,  you don't need every aboriginal person to agree on every thing for aborigines to  benefit as a whole.  Much like you don't need every pom to agree on everything their representatives do for them to benefit as a society.  Spoken as the European immigrant you are, who has inherited 'e pluribus unum' from his family's experience of emigration from their ethnic homeland.

If you think Europeans are all one happy homogeneous group you haven't been paying attention to the last 2000 yrs. :D

And dont think i haven't noticed that you refuse to answer a simple question.

MeisterEckhart wrote on Apr 18^th, 2023 at 7:39pm:

Aussie wrote on Apr 18th, 2023 at 7:29pm: Fuq me dead!!!!!  I know!  Been there physically, done that. What is your point? Well, if you've been there and dobe that, you'd know that tribal peoples aren't one and don't subscribe to the concept of ethno-nationality. So, no one voice can speak for aboriginal peoples.

No-one is saying they do, FFS.  Price is saying that locals have a chat, decide on a matter.....ie Local Voice...and somehow what that decision is gets implemented, Harry Potter like.

I am saying the smacking obvious.

That local voice needs a conduit to Canberra which  'The Voice' allows for.

FFS!

Ever been to Woorabinda?????????

John Smith wrote on Apr 18^th, 2023 at 8:00pm:

So was that a 'yes' or a 'no'? Here's a clue,  you don't need every aboriginal person to agree on every thing for aborigines to  benefit as a whole.  Much like you don't need every pom to agree on everything their representatives do for them to benefit as a society.

So what IS it that the Voice will deliver that none of the hundreds of other Aboriginal voices from ministers to Aboriginal departments to the NIAA and land councils and Aboriginal services, local state and federal,  could not?

Frank wrote on Apr 18^th, 2023 at 9:07pm:

John Smith wrote on Apr 18th, 2023 at 8:00pm: So was that a 'yes' or a 'no'? Here's a clue,  you don't need every aboriginal person to agree on every thing for aborigines to  benefit as a whole.  Much like you don't need every pom to agree on everything their representatives do for them to benefit as a society.  So what IS it that the Voice will deliver that none of the hundreds of other Aboriginal voices from ministers to Aboriginal departments to the NIAA and land councils and Aboriginal services, local state and federal,  could not?

A Constitutional imperative.

All wall paper and glitter......a token yet very important nod.  An acknowledgement.

No skin off your nose.

Frank wrote on Apr 18^th, 2023 at 9:07pm:

John Smith wrote on Apr 18th, 2023 at 8:00pm: So was that a 'yes' or a 'no'? Here's a clue,  you don't need every aboriginal person to agree on every thing for aborigines to  benefit as a whole.  Much like you don't need every pom to agree on everything their representatives do for them to benefit as a society.  So what IS it that the Voice will deliver that none of the hundreds of other Aboriginal voices from ministers to Aboriginal departments to the NIAA and land councils and Aboriginal services, local state and federal,  could not?

Representation

John Smith wrote on Apr 18^th, 2023 at 8:32pm:

MeisterEckhart wrote on Apr 18th, 2023 at 8:04pm: John Smith wrote on Apr 18th, 2023 at 8:00pm: So was that a 'yes' or a 'no'? Here's a clue,  you don't need every aboriginal person to agree on every thing for aborigines to  benefit as a whole.  Much like you don't need every pom to agree on everything their representatives do for them to benefit as a society.  Spoken as the European immigrant you are, who has inherited 'e pluribus unum' from his family's experience of emigration from their ethnic homeland. If you think Europeans are all one happy homogeneous group you haven't been paying attention to the last 2000 yrs. :D And dont think i haven't noticed that you refuse to answer a simple question.

Of course they're not, but young countries of migrants have the advantage of being capable of structuring a nation as more or less 'one and indivisible' - at least in that their descendants consider themselves Australians, Canadians, Brazilians etc first.

Indigenous tribal peoples identify themselves by tribe first and often only.

Aussie wrote on Apr 18^th, 2023 at 8:40pm:

MeisterEckhart wrote on Apr 18th, 2023 at 7:39pm: Aussie wrote on Apr 18th, 2023 at 7:29pm: Fuq me dead!!!!!  I know!  Been there physically, done that. What is your point? Well, if you've been there and dobe that, you'd know that tribal peoples aren't one and don't subscribe to the concept of ethno-nationality. So, no one voice can speak for aboriginal peoples. No-one is saying they do, FFS.  Price is saying that locals have a chat, decide on a matter.....ie Local Voice...and somehow what that decision is gets implemented, Harry Potter like. I am saying the smacking obvious. That local voice needs a conduit to Canberra which  'The Voice' allows for.

And when those local voices are competing for resources or are opposed to each other, which voice is the voice that prevails?

What possible great cause. that couldn't be managed by legislation, could be so great that it requires one voice to rule them all?

That will be for Government to determine.  This is all tokenism, symbolism...whatever.

Aussie wrote on Apr 19^th, 2023 at 7:52am:

That will be for Government to determine.  This is all tokenism, symbolism...whatever.

And when the 'Voice Commission' is dominated by 1/8 - 1/4 caste 'Aboriginal' Australians, arrogating to themselves the right to speak for all Aboriginal 'people', and whose accumulation of power and influence is capable of unduly influencing the Australian government and Parliament, ultimately perverting Australian democracy?

MeisterEckhart wrote on Apr 19^th, 2023 at 6:45pm:

Aussie wrote on Apr 19th, 2023 at 7:52am: That will be for Government to determine.  This is all tokenism, symbolism...whatever. And when the 'Voice Commission' is dominated by 1/8 - 1/4 caste 'Aboriginal' Australians, arrogating to themselves the right to speak for all Aboriginal 'people', and whose accumulation of power and influence is capable of unduly influencing the Australian government and Parliament, ultimately perverting Australian democracy?

FMD.......where is your source for that claim????

MeisterEckhart wrote on Apr 19^th, 2023 at 6:45pm:

Aussie wrote on Apr 19th, 2023 at 7:52am: That will be for Government to determine.  This is all tokenism, symbolism...whatever. And when the 'Voice Commission' is dominated by 1/8 - 1/4 caste 'Aboriginal' Australians, arrogating to themselves the right to speak for all Aboriginal 'people', and whose accumulation of power and influence is capable of unduly influencing the Australian government and Parliament, ultimately perverting Australian democracy?

Then the govt, of the day can change the set up of 'the voice' so as to reflect expectations off the day.
This is why the referendum doesn't specify how the voice is to be set up. So as to give future governments flexibility  . The only thing that will be set in stone is that there will be a voice, how that voice is to be presented is up to the government of the day.

John Smith wrote on Apr 19^th, 2023 at 6:58pm:

MeisterEckhart wrote on Apr 19th, 2023 at 6:45pm: Aussie wrote on Apr 19th, 2023 at 7:52am: That will be for Government to determine.  This is all tokenism, symbolism...whatever. And when the 'Voice Commission' is dominated by 1/8 - 1/4 caste 'Aboriginal' Australians, arrogating to themselves the right to speak for all Aboriginal 'people', and whose accumulation of power and influence is capable of unduly influencing the Australian government and Parliament, ultimately perverting Australian democracy? Then the govt, of the day can change the set up of 'the voice' so as to reflect expectations off the day. This is why the referendum doesn't specify how the voice is to be set up. So as to give future governments flexibility  . The only thing that will be set in stone is that there will be a voice, how that voice is to be presented is up to the government of the day.

And when the Voice is enshrined in the Constitution?

The point of its enshrinement in the constitution is to ensure it has a permanent and irrevocable influence on the Australian government of the day.

Did you get that from the back seat of Aussie's cab with your legs up Gay boy?

MeisterEckhart wrote on Apr 19^th, 2023 at 7:01pm:

John Smith wrote on Apr 19th, 2023 at 6:58pm: MeisterEckhart wrote on Apr 19th, 2023 at 6:45pm: Aussie wrote on Apr 19th, 2023 at 7:52am: That will be for Government to determine.  This is all tokenism, symbolism...whatever. And when the 'Voice Commission' is dominated by 1/8 - 1/4 caste 'Aboriginal' Australians, arrogating to themselves the right to speak for all Aboriginal 'people', and whose accumulation of power and influence is capable of unduly influencing the Australian government and Parliament, ultimately perverting Australian democracy? Then the govt, of the day can change the set up of 'the voice' so as to reflect expectations off the day. This is why the referendum doesn't specify how the voice is to be set up. So as to give future governments flexibility  . The only thing that will be set in stone is that there will be a voice, how that voice is to be presented is up to the government of the day. And when the Voice is enshrined in the Constitution? The point of its enshrinement in the constitution is to ensure it has a permanent and irrevocable influence on the Australian government of the day.

The only thing that will be enshrined is that there is a voice . How that voice is represented to government is up to the government of the day

John Smith wrote on Apr 19^th, 2023 at 7:03pm:

MeisterEckhart wrote on Apr 19th, 2023 at 7:01pm: John Smith wrote on Apr 19th, 2023 at 6:58pm: MeisterEckhart wrote on Apr 19th, 2023 at 6:45pm: Aussie wrote on Apr 19th, 2023 at 7:52am: That will be for Government to determine.  This is all tokenism, symbolism...whatever. And when the 'Voice Commission' is dominated by 1/8 - 1/4 caste 'Aboriginal' Australians, arrogating to themselves the right to speak for all Aboriginal 'people', and whose accumulation of power and influence is capable of unduly influencing the Australian government and Parliament, ultimately perverting Australian democracy? Then the govt, of the day can change the set up of 'the voice' so as to reflect expectations off the day. This is why the referendum doesn't specify how the voice is to be set up. So as to give future governments flexibility  . The only thing that will be set in stone is that there will be a voice, how that voice is to be presented is up to the government of the day. And when the Voice is enshrined in the Constitution? The point of its enshrinement in the constitution is to ensure it has a permanent and irrevocable influence on the Australian government of the day. The only thing that will be enshrined is that there is a voice . How that voice is represented to government is up to the government of the day

When it comes to enshrinement in the Constitution, 'voice' is elevated to a euphemism for power.

And the Voice said "You got flagon Gubba?"

John Smith wrote on Apr 19^th, 2023 at 7:03pm:

MeisterEckhart wrote on Apr 19th, 2023 at 7:01pm: John Smith wrote on Apr 19th, 2023 at 6:58pm: MeisterEckhart wrote on Apr 19th, 2023 at 6:45pm: Aussie wrote on Apr 19th, 2023 at 7:52am: That will be for Government to determine.  This is all tokenism, symbolism...whatever. And when the 'Voice Commission' is dominated by 1/8 - 1/4 caste 'Aboriginal' Australians, arrogating to themselves the right to speak for all Aboriginal 'people', and whose accumulation of power and influence is capable of unduly influencing the Australian government and Parliament, ultimately perverting Australian democracy? Then the govt, of the day can change the set up of 'the voice' so as to reflect expectations off the day. This is why the referendum doesn't specify how the voice is to be set up. So as to give future governments flexibility  . The only thing that will be set in stone is that there will be a voice, how that voice is to be presented is up to the government of the day. And when the Voice is enshrined in the Constitution? The point of its enshrinement in the constitution is to ensure it has a permanent and irrevocable influence on the Australian government of the day. The only thing that will be enshrined is that there is a voice . How that voice is represented to government is up to the government of the day

Silly dago bollocks, Short Planks.
If it's in the Constitution it's in the hands of unelected High Court justices.

Even a thick retarded idiot like you would know that.

MeisterEckhart wrote on Apr 19^th, 2023 at 7:05pm:

John Smith wrote on Apr 19th, 2023 at 7:03pm: MeisterEckhart wrote on Apr 19th, 2023 at 7:01pm: John Smith wrote on Apr 19th, 2023 at 6:58pm: MeisterEckhart wrote on Apr 19th, 2023 at 6:45pm: Aussie wrote on Apr 19th, 2023 at 7:52am: That will be for Government to determine.  This is all tokenism, symbolism...whatever. And when the 'Voice Commission' is dominated by 1/8 - 1/4 caste 'Aboriginal' Australians, arrogating to themselves the right to speak for all Aboriginal 'people', and whose accumulation of power and influence is capable of unduly influencing the Australian government and Parliament, ultimately perverting Australian democracy? Then the govt, of the day can change the set up of 'the voice' so as to reflect expectations off the day. This is why the referendum doesn't specify how the voice is to be set up. So as to give future governments flexibility  . The only thing that will be set in stone is that there will be a voice, how that voice is to be presented is up to the government of the day. And when the Voice is enshrined in the Constitution? The point of its enshrinement in the constitution is to ensure it has a permanent and irrevocable influence on the Australian government of the day. The only thing that will be enshrined is that there is a voice . How that voice is represented to government is up to the government of the day When it comes to enshrinement in the Constitution, 'voice' is elevated to a euphemism for power.

The Voice is advisory,  how much power it has will depend on the government of the day.

Frank wrote on Apr 19^th, 2023 at 7:20pm:

John Smith wrote on Apr 19th, 2023 at 7:03pm: MeisterEckhart wrote on Apr 19th, 2023 at 7:01pm: John Smith wrote on Apr 19th, 2023 at 6:58pm: MeisterEckhart wrote on Apr 19th, 2023 at 6:45pm: Aussie wrote on Apr 19th, 2023 at 7:52am: That will be for Government to determine.  This is all tokenism, symbolism...whatever. And when the 'Voice Commission' is dominated by 1/8 - 1/4 caste 'Aboriginal' Australians, arrogating to themselves the right to speak for all Aboriginal 'people', and whose accumulation of power and influence is capable of unduly influencing the Australian government and Parliament, ultimately perverting Australian democracy? Then the govt, of the day can change the set up of 'the voice' so as to reflect expectations off the day. This is why the referendum doesn't specify how the voice is to be set up. So as to give future governments flexibility  . The only thing that will be set in stone is that there will be a voice, how that voice is to be presented is up to the government of the day. And when the Voice is enshrined in the Constitution? The point of its enshrinement in the constitution is to ensure it has a permanent and irrevocable influence on the Australian government of the day. The only thing that will be enshrined is that there is a voice . How that voice is represented to government is up to the government of the day Silly dago bollocks, Short Planks. If it's in the Constitution it's in the hands of unelected High Court justices. Even a thick retarded idiot like you would know that.

For someone who pretends to be educated,  you really are an idiot. 

John Smith wrote on Apr 19^th, 2023 at 8:02pm:

MeisterEckhart wrote on Apr 19th, 2023 at 7:05pm: John Smith wrote on Apr 19th, 2023 at 7:03pm: MeisterEckhart wrote on Apr 19th, 2023 at 7:01pm: John Smith wrote on Apr 19th, 2023 at 6:58pm: MeisterEckhart wrote on Apr 19th, 2023 at 6:45pm: Aussie wrote on Apr 19th, 2023 at 7:52am: That will be for Government to determine.  This is all tokenism, symbolism...whatever. And when the 'Voice Commission' is dominated by 1/8 - 1/4 caste 'Aboriginal' Australians, arrogating to themselves the right to speak for all Aboriginal 'people', and whose accumulation of power and influence is capable of unduly influencing the Australian government and Parliament, ultimately perverting Australian democracy? Then the govt, of the day can change the set up of 'the voice' so as to reflect expectations off the day. This is why the referendum doesn't specify how the voice is to be set up. So as to give future governments flexibility  . The only thing that will be set in stone is that there will be a voice, how that voice is to be presented is up to the government of the day. And when the Voice is enshrined in the Constitution? The point of its enshrinement in the constitution is to ensure it has a permanent and irrevocable influence on the Australian government of the day. The only thing that will be enshrined is that there is a voice . How that voice is represented to government is up to the government of the day When it comes to enshrinement in the Constitution, 'voice' is elevated to a euphemism for power. The Voice is advisory,  how much power it has will depend on the government of the day.

Frank is right on this one.

Once in the Constitution, the interpretation of 'advisory' and whether it translates into veto power over the government of the day will depend on the courts, not Parliament.

MeisterEckhart wrote on Apr 19^th, 2023 at 7:01pm:

John Smith wrote on Apr 19th, 2023 at 6:58pm: MeisterEckhart wrote on Apr 19th, 2023 at 6:45pm: Aussie wrote on Apr 19th, 2023 at 7:52am: That will be for Government to determine.  This is all tokenism, symbolism...whatever. And when the 'Voice Commission' is dominated by 1/8 - 1/4 caste 'Aboriginal' Australians, arrogating to themselves the right to speak for all Aboriginal 'people', and whose accumulation of power and influence is capable of unduly influencing the Australian government and Parliament, ultimately perverting Australian democracy? Then the govt, of the day can change the set up of 'the voice' so as to reflect expectations off the day. This is why the referendum doesn't specify how the voice is to be set up. So as to give future governments flexibility  . The only thing that will be set in stone is that there will be a voice, how that voice is to be presented is up to the government of the day. And when the Voice is enshrined in the Constitution? The point of its enshrinement in the constitution is to ensure it has a permanent and irrevocable influence on the Australian government of the day.

Rubbish.  It gets as much 'influence' as the Government of the day wants to give it.

Aussie wrote on Apr 19^th, 2023 at 9:01pm:

MeisterEckhart wrote on Apr 19th, 2023 at 7:01pm: John Smith wrote on Apr 19th, 2023 at 6:58pm: MeisterEckhart wrote on Apr 19th, 2023 at 6:45pm: Aussie wrote on Apr 19th, 2023 at 7:52am: That will be for Government to determine.  This is all tokenism, symbolism...whatever. And when the 'Voice Commission' is dominated by 1/8 - 1/4 caste 'Aboriginal' Australians, arrogating to themselves the right to speak for all Aboriginal 'people', and whose accumulation of power and influence is capable of unduly influencing the Australian government and Parliament, ultimately perverting Australian democracy? Then the govt, of the day can change the set up of 'the voice' so as to reflect expectations off the day. This is why the referendum doesn't specify how the voice is to be set up. So as to give future governments flexibility  . The only thing that will be set in stone is that there will be a voice, how that voice is to be presented is up to the government of the day. And when the Voice is enshrined in the Constitution? The point of its enshrinement in the constitution is to ensure it has a permanent and irrevocable influence on the Australian government of the day. Rubbish.  It gets as much 'influence' as the Government of the day wants to give it.

And when the government of the day disregards the 'Voice Commission', what then? Litigation? Sent to the High Court to determine whether the government of the day acted unconstitutionally?

MeisterEckhart wrote on Apr 19^th, 2023 at 9:19pm:

Aussie wrote on Apr 19th, 2023 at 9:01pm: MeisterEckhart wrote on Apr 19th, 2023 at 7:01pm: John Smith wrote on Apr 19th, 2023 at 6:58pm: MeisterEckhart wrote on Apr 19th, 2023 at 6:45pm: Aussie wrote on Apr 19th, 2023 at 7:52am: That will be for Government to determine.  This is all tokenism, symbolism...whatever. And when the 'Voice Commission' is dominated by 1/8 - 1/4 caste 'Aboriginal' Australians, arrogating to themselves the right to speak for all Aboriginal 'people', and whose accumulation of power and influence is capable of unduly influencing the Australian government and Parliament, ultimately perverting Australian democracy? Then the govt, of the day can change the set up of 'the voice' so as to reflect expectations off the day. This is why the referendum doesn't specify how the voice is to be set up. So as to give future governments flexibility  . The only thing that will be set in stone is that there will be a voice, how that voice is to be presented is up to the government of the day. And when the Voice is enshrined in the Constitution? The point of its enshrinement in the constitution is to ensure it has a permanent and irrevocable influence on the Australian government of the day. Rubbish.  It gets as much 'influence' as the Government of the day wants to give it. And when the government of the day disregards the 'Voice Commission', what then? Litigation? Sent to the High Court to determine whether the government of the day acted unconstitutionally?

The constitution will only say that they have to have a voice,  not that the government has to act on it. The government has said repeatedly that whether it acts on that advice or not will be  up to them.

John Smith wrote on Apr 19^th, 2023 at 9:27pm:

MeisterEckhart wrote on Apr 19th, 2023 at 9:19pm: Aussie wrote on Apr 19th, 2023 at 9:01pm: MeisterEckhart wrote on Apr 19th, 2023 at 7:01pm: John Smith wrote on Apr 19th, 2023 at 6:58pm: MeisterEckhart wrote on Apr 19th, 2023 at 6:45pm: Aussie wrote on Apr 19th, 2023 at 7:52am: That will be for Government to determine.  This is all tokenism, symbolism...whatever. And when the 'Voice Commission' is dominated by 1/8 - 1/4 caste 'Aboriginal' Australians, arrogating to themselves the right to speak for all Aboriginal 'people', and whose accumulation of power and influence is capable of unduly influencing the Australian government and Parliament, ultimately perverting Australian democracy? Then the govt, of the day can change the set up of 'the voice' so as to reflect expectations off the day. This is why the referendum doesn't specify how the voice is to be set up. So as to give future governments flexibility  . The only thing that will be set in stone is that there will be a voice, how that voice is to be presented is up to the government of the day. And when the Voice is enshrined in the Constitution? The point of its enshrinement in the constitution is to ensure it has a permanent and irrevocable influence on the Australian government of the day. Rubbish.  It gets as much 'influence' as the Government of the day wants to give it. And when the government of the day disregards the 'Voice Commission', what then? Litigation? Sent to the High Court to determine whether the government of the day acted unconstitutionally? The constitution will only say that they have to have a voice,  not that the government has to act on it. The government has said repeatedly that whether it acts on that advice or not will be  up to them.

What is the point of a constitutional voice if it doesn't translate into power?

A constitutional body that is subsequently disregarded by the government of the day will have socio-political consequences that will lead to litigation.

The voice is predicated on the lie of aboriginal unity and is promoted by people with less claim to aboriginal descent than many descendants of immigrants have to their ancestors' homeland.

John Smith wrote on Apr 19^th, 2023 at 9:27pm:

MeisterEckhart wrote on Apr 19th, 2023 at 9:19pm: Aussie wrote on Apr 19th, 2023 at 9:01pm: MeisterEckhart wrote on Apr 19th, 2023 at 7:01pm: John Smith wrote on Apr 19th, 2023 at 6:58pm: MeisterEckhart wrote on Apr 19th, 2023 at 6:45pm: Aussie wrote on Apr 19th, 2023 at 7:52am: That will be for Government to determine.  This is all tokenism, symbolism...whatever. And when the 'Voice Commission' is dominated by 1/8 - 1/4 caste 'Aboriginal' Australians, arrogating to themselves the right to speak for all Aboriginal 'people', and whose accumulation of power and influence is capable of unduly influencing the Australian government and Parliament, ultimately perverting Australian democracy? Then the govt, of the day can change the set up of 'the voice' so as to reflect expectations off the day. This is why the referendum doesn't specify how the voice is to be set up. So as to give future governments flexibility  . The only thing that will be set in stone is that there will be a voice, how that voice is to be presented is up to the government of the day. And when the Voice is enshrined in the Constitution? The point of its enshrinement in the constitution is to ensure it has a permanent and irrevocable influence on the Australian government of the day. Rubbish.  It gets as much 'influence' as the Government of the day wants to give it. And when the government of the day disregards the 'Voice Commission', what then? Litigation? Sent to the High Court to determine whether the government of the day acted unconstitutionally? The constitution will only say that they have to have a voice,  not that the government has to act on it. The government has said repeatedly that whether it acts on that advice or not will be  up to them.

So what IS the frikken point?

There are hundreds of lobby groups that can be listened to or ignored.

What IS the point of putting a lobby group into the constitution if it can be safely ignored?.
What's the fkkkking point of it all?

MeisterEckhart wrote on Apr 19^th, 2023 at 9:47pm:

John Smith wrote on Apr 19th, 2023 at 9:27pm: MeisterEckhart wrote on Apr 19th, 2023 at 9:19pm: Aussie wrote on Apr 19th, 2023 at 9:01pm: MeisterEckhart wrote on Apr 19th, 2023 at 7:01pm: John Smith wrote on Apr 19th, 2023 at 6:58pm: MeisterEckhart wrote on Apr 19th, 2023 at 6:45pm: Aussie wrote on Apr 19th, 2023 at 7:52am: That will be for Government to determine.  This is all tokenism, symbolism...whatever. And when the 'Voice Commission' is dominated by 1/8 - 1/4 caste 'Aboriginal' Australians, arrogating to themselves the right to speak for all Aboriginal 'people', and whose accumulation of power and influence is capable of unduly influencing the Australian government and Parliament, ultimately perverting Australian democracy? Then the govt, of the day can change the set up of 'the voice' so as to reflect expectations off the day. This is why the referendum doesn't specify how the voice is to be set up. So as to give future governments flexibility  . The only thing that will be set in stone is that there will be a voice, how that voice is to be presented is up to the government of the day. And when the Voice is enshrined in the Constitution? The point of its enshrinement in the constitution is to ensure it has a permanent and irrevocable influence on the Australian government of the day. Rubbish.  It gets as much 'influence' as the Government of the day wants to give it. And when the government of the day disregards the 'Voice Commission', what then? Litigation? Sent to the High Court to determine whether the government of the day acted unconstitutionally? The constitution will only say that they have to have a voice,  not that the government has to act on it. The government has said repeatedly that whether it acts on that advice or not will be  up to them. What is the point of a constitutional voice if it doesn't translate into power? A constitutional body that is subsequently disregarded by the government of the day will have socio-political consequences that will lead to litigation. The voice is predicated on the lie of aboriginal unity and is promoted by people with less claim to aboriginal descent than many descendants of immigrants have to their ancestors' homeland.

A gesture of goodwill, recognition, tokenism, sybolism...etc.

Aussie wrote on Apr 20^th, 2023 at 8:44am:

MeisterEckhart wrote on Apr 19th, 2023 at 9:47pm: John Smith wrote on Apr 19th, 2023 at 9:27pm: MeisterEckhart wrote on Apr 19th, 2023 at 9:19pm: Aussie wrote on Apr 19th, 2023 at 9:01pm: MeisterEckhart wrote on Apr 19th, 2023 at 7:01pm: John Smith wrote on Apr 19th, 2023 at 6:58pm: MeisterEckhart wrote on Apr 19th, 2023 at 6:45pm: Aussie wrote on Apr 19th, 2023 at 7:52am: That will be for Government to determine.  This is all tokenism, symbolism...whatever. And when the 'Voice Commission' is dominated by 1/8 - 1/4 caste 'Aboriginal' Australians, arrogating to themselves the right to speak for all Aboriginal 'people', and whose accumulation of power and influence is capable of unduly influencing the Australian government and Parliament, ultimately perverting Australian democracy? Then the govt, of the day can change the set up of 'the voice' so as to reflect expectations off the day. This is why the referendum doesn't specify how the voice is to be set up. So as to give future governments flexibility  . The only thing that will be set in stone is that there will be a voice, how that voice is to be presented is up to the government of the day. And when the Voice is enshrined in the Constitution? The point of its enshrinement in the constitution is to ensure it has a permanent and irrevocable influence on the Australian government of the day. Rubbish.  It gets as much 'influence' as the Government of the day wants to give it. And when the government of the day disregards the 'Voice Commission', what then? Litigation? Sent to the High Court to determine whether the government of the day acted unconstitutionally? The constitution will only say that they have to have a voice,  not that the government has to act on it. The government has said repeatedly that whether it acts on that advice or not will be  up to them. What is the point of a constitutional voice if it doesn't translate into power? A constitutional body that is subsequently disregarded by the government of the day will have socio-political consequences that will lead to litigation. The voice is predicated on the lie of aboriginal unity and is promoted by people with less claim to aboriginal descent than many descendants of immigrants have to their ancestors' homeland. A gesture of goodwill, recognition, tokenism, sybolism...etc.

And you call yourself a lawyer!

Aussie wrote on Apr 20^th, 2023 at 8:44am:

A gesture of goodwill, recognition, tokenism, sybolism...etc.

Kevin Rudd's 'Sorry' statement was a gesture of goodwill, recognition, tokenism, and symbolism.

The consequences of amending the Constitution (particularly where it recognises a committee which binds Parliament to consider its recommendations), go way beyond a gesture of goodwill, recognition, tokenism, symbolism...

etc.

Aussie wrote on Apr 20^th, 2023 at 8:44am:

MeisterEckhart wrote on Apr 19th, 2023 at 9:47pm: John Smith wrote on Apr 19th, 2023 at 9:27pm: MeisterEckhart wrote on Apr 19th, 2023 at 9:19pm: Aussie wrote on Apr 19th, 2023 at 9:01pm: MeisterEckhart wrote on Apr 19th, 2023 at 7:01pm: John Smith wrote on Apr 19th, 2023 at 6:58pm: MeisterEckhart wrote on Apr 19th, 2023 at 6:45pm: Aussie wrote on Apr 19th, 2023 at 7:52am: That will be for Government to determine.  This is all tokenism, symbolism...whatever. And when the 'Voice Commission' is dominated by 1/8 - 1/4 caste 'Aboriginal' Australians, arrogating to themselves the right to speak for all Aboriginal 'people', and whose accumulation of power and influence is capable of unduly influencing the Australian government and Parliament, ultimately perverting Australian democracy? Then the govt, of the day can change the set up of 'the voice' so as to reflect expectations off the day. This is why the referendum doesn't specify how the voice is to be set up. So as to give future governments flexibility  . The only thing that will be set in stone is that there will be a voice, how that voice is to be presented is up to the government of the day. And when the Voice is enshrined in the Constitution? The point of its enshrinement in the constitution is to ensure it has a permanent and irrevocable influence on the Australian government of the day. Rubbish.  It gets as much 'influence' as the Government of the day wants to give it. And when the government of the day disregards the 'Voice Commission', what then? Litigation? Sent to the High Court to determine whether the government of the day acted unconstitutionally? The constitution will only say that they have to have a voice,  not that the government has to act on it. The government has said repeatedly that whether it acts on that advice or not will be  up to them. What is the point of a constitutional voice if it doesn't translate into power? A constitutional body that is subsequently disregarded by the government of the day will have socio-political consequences that will lead to litigation. The voice is predicated on the lie of aboriginal unity and is promoted by people with less claim to aboriginal descent than many descendants of immigrants have to their ancestors' homeland. A gesture of goodwill, recognition, tokenism, sybolism...etc.

The constitution is not a pantomime show of gestures, symbols and gesticulation, Arsie.
Go to a puppet theatre for those.

MeisterEckhart wrote on Apr 20^th, 2023 at 9:32am:

Aussie wrote on Apr 20th, 2023 at 8:44am: MeisterEckhart wrote on Apr 19th, 2023 at 9:47pm: John Smith wrote on Apr 19th, 2023 at 9:27pm: MeisterEckhart wrote on Apr 19th, 2023 at 9:19pm: Aussie wrote on Apr 19th, 2023 at 9:01pm: MeisterEckhart wrote on Apr 19th, 2023 at 7:01pm: John Smith wrote on Apr 19th, 2023 at 6:58pm: MeisterEckhart wrote on Apr 19th, 2023 at 6:45pm: Aussie wrote on Apr 19th, 2023 at 7:52am: That will be for Government to determine.  This is all tokenism, symbolism...whatever. And when the 'Voice Commission' is dominated by 1/8 - 1/4 caste 'Aboriginal' Australians, arrogating to themselves the right to speak for all Aboriginal 'people', and whose accumulation of power and influence is capable of unduly influencing the Australian government and Parliament, ultimately perverting Australian democracy? Then the govt, of the day can change the set up of 'the voice' so as to reflect expectations off the day. This is why the referendum doesn't specify how the voice is to be set up. So as to give future governments flexibility  . The only thing that will be set in stone is that there will be a voice, how that voice is to be presented is up to the government of the day. And when the Voice is enshrined in the Constitution? The point of its enshrinement in the constitution is to ensure it has a permanent and irrevocable influence on the Australian government of the day. Rubbish.  It gets as much 'influence' as the Government of the day wants to give it. And when the government of the day disregards the 'Voice Commission', what then? Litigation? Sent to the High Court to determine whether the government of the day acted unconstitutionally? The constitution will only say that they have to have a voice,  not that the government has to act on it. The government has said repeatedly that whether it acts on that advice or not will be  up to them. What is the point of a constitutional voice if it doesn't translate into power? A constitutional body that is subsequently disregarded by the government of the day will have socio-political consequences that will lead to litigation. The voice is predicated on the lie of aboriginal unity and is promoted by people with less claim to aboriginal descent than many descendants of immigrants have to their ancestors' homeland. A gesture of goodwill, recognition, tokenism, sybolism...etc. And you call yourself a lawyer!

Yes, and what is your profession?

MeisterEckhart wrote on Apr 20^th, 2023 at 9:40am:

Aussie wrote on Apr 20th, 2023 at 8:44am: A gesture of goodwill, recognition, tokenism, sybolism...etc. Kevin Rudd's 'Sorry' statement was a gesture of goodwill, recognition, tokenism, and symbolism. The consequences of amending the Constitution (particularly where it recognises a committee which binds Parliament to consider its recommendations), go way beyond a gesture of goodwill, recognition, tokenism, symbolism... etc.

Really?

Aussie wrote on Apr 20^th, 2023 at 1:00pm:

MeisterEckhart wrote on Apr 20th, 2023 at 9:32am: Aussie wrote on Apr 20th, 2023 at 8:44am: MeisterEckhart wrote on Apr 19th, 2023 at 9:47pm: John Smith wrote on Apr 19th, 2023 at 9:27pm: MeisterEckhart wrote on Apr 19th, 2023 at 9:19pm: Aussie wrote on Apr 19th, 2023 at 9:01pm: MeisterEckhart wrote on Apr 19th, 2023 at 7:01pm: John Smith wrote on Apr 19th, 2023 at 6:58pm: MeisterEckhart wrote on Apr 19th, 2023 at 6:45pm: Aussie wrote on Apr 19th, 2023 at 7:52am: That will be for Government to determine.  This is all tokenism, symbolism...whatever. And when the 'Voice Commission' is dominated by 1/8 - 1/4 caste 'Aboriginal' Australians, arrogating to themselves the right to speak for all Aboriginal 'people', and whose accumulation of power and influence is capable of unduly influencing the Australian government and Parliament, ultimately perverting Australian democracy? Then the govt, of the day can change the set up of 'the voice' so as to reflect expectations off the day. This is why the referendum doesn't specify how the voice is to be set up. So as to give future governments flexibility  . The only thing that will be set in stone is that there will be a voice, how that voice is to be presented is up to the government of the day. And when the Voice is enshrined in the Constitution? The point of its enshrinement in the constitution is to ensure it has a permanent and irrevocable influence on the Australian government of the day. Rubbish.  It gets as much 'influence' as the Government of the day wants to give it. And when the government of the day disregards the 'Voice Commission', what then? Litigation? Sent to the High Court to determine whether the government of the day acted unconstitutionally? The constitution will only say that they have to have a voice,  not that the government has to act on it. The government has said repeatedly that whether it acts on that advice or not will be  up to them. What is the point of a constitutional voice if it doesn't translate into power? A constitutional body that is subsequently disregarded by the government of the day will have socio-political consequences that will lead to litigation. The voice is predicated on the lie of aboriginal unity and is promoted by people with less claim to aboriginal descent than many descendants of immigrants have to their ancestors' homeland. A gesture of goodwill, recognition, tokenism, sybolism...etc. And you call yourself a lawyer! Yes

:D :D :D

Bollox. You are no lawyer, don't be ridiculous.