Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

What part of the media isn't against this?  Albo has to fight the constant lies and attempts to confuse. It's totally politicised. It's NOT Albo's referendum. HE didn't organise the "Voice".  It's TOTALLY reasonable for a Gov't to put it to the People.  Dutton saying HE will run another one is only trying to say we can have a bet both ways .The result is  the desired "MORE Confusion" and part of the negative PLAN.  Nev

  • Agree 2
  • Informative 1
Posted

well said nev. I  personally will support Albanese in the future even if I vote no to the voice. The only reason I would vote "yes" is to avoid hurting those abos who are working hard for a yes vote.

Posted

Noel Pearson says Voice is just the 'first door' to a treaty in resurfaced video contradicting Anthony Albanese

 

Yes vote campaigner Noel Pearson has been captured saying a Voice to Parliament is just the first 'door' to a treaty between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians.

 

The Aboriginal lawyer was recorded telling a 'truth telling' forum that a treaty could only be negotiated after a Voice was enshrined in the Constitution.

 

No vote advocates say Mr Pearson's declaration is a further contradiction of Prime Minister Anthony Albanese's insistence a treaty would not be an inevitable consequence of a Voice. 

 

'So, for those of us who've come late to this strategy you need to wake up, Mr Pearson told an audience at the Garma festival in August 2018.

 

'Treaty door is the second door. The first door is constitutional enshrinement.' 

 

Earlier in his speech, Mr Pearson had said: 'We've gotta have a foundation on negotiation.' 

 

'But before we can do that, we can't just enter into it willy-nilly. We need a constitutional Voice for the First Nations.

 

'A position from which we can never be shifted. A position from which to negotiate with all of the moral and historical power that is ours by virtue of our possession of this land for more than 60,000 millennia.'

In another video, the Cape York leader was filmed sending a similar message in September 2018 as he delivered to Hal Wootten Lecture at the invitation of the University of NSW's Law department.   

'The first precondition to a treaty is for us to have a voice,' Mr Pearson said. 

 

'And the voice to negotiate such a treaty. It's common sense. We talked about it in the dialogues that Professor [Megan] Davis and Pat Anderson chaired in 2016.'

Posted
11 hours ago, Bruce Tuncks said:

the difficulty in legally defining who is indigenous and who not

Government agencies and community organisations usually accept three ‘working criteria’ as confirmation of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander heritage. These are:

being of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander descent  (That could be proven by DNA assessment)

identifying as an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander person (Seems that is what the "box tickers" do)

being accepted as such by the community in which you live, or formerly lived. (That's the one the box tickers can't get around. It's the John 10:14 test - I know my own and my own know me,)

All of these things must apply. The way you look or how you live are not requirements.

Posted (edited)

But this " whitey " has descendants with a smidgen of " colour " in them , 

And do belong to some mob .

With of course a little help their cousins don't get .

Also a neice with Ms or something Similar,  and gets lots of help from the 

Compulsory insurance scheme. 

spacesailor

 

Edited by spacesailor
A little more !
Posted
3 hours ago, red750 said:

Noel Pearson says Voice is just the 'first door' to a treaty in resurfaced video contradicting Anthony Albanese

 

Yes vote campaigner Noel Pearson has been captured saying a Voice to Parliament is just the first 'door' to a treaty between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians.

 

The Aboriginal lawyer was recorded telling a 'truth telling' forum that a treaty could only be negotiated after a Voice was enshrined in the Constitution.

 

No vote advocates say Mr Pearson's declaration is a further contradiction of Prime Minister Anthony Albanese's insistence a treaty would not be an inevitable consequence of a Voice. 

 

'So, for those of us who've come late to this strategy you need to wake up, Mr Pearson told an audience at the Garma festival in August 2018.

 

'Treaty door is the second door. The first door is constitutional enshrinement.' 

 

Earlier in his speech, Mr Pearson had said: 'We've gotta have a foundation on negotiation.' 

 

'But before we can do that, we can't just enter into it willy-nilly. We need a constitutional Voice for the First Nations.

 

'A position from which we can never be shifted. A position from which to negotiate with all of the moral and historical power that is ours by virtue of our possession of this land for more than 60,000 millennia.'

In another video, the Cape York leader was filmed sending a similar message in September 2018 as he delivered to Hal Wootten Lecture at the invitation of the University of NSW's Law department.   

'The first precondition to a treaty is for us to have a voice,' Mr Pearson said. 

 

'And the voice to negotiate such a treaty. It's common sense. We talked about it in the dialogues that Professor [Megan] Davis and Pat Anderson chaired in 2016.'

Look at the actual wording of what you're voting on and don't jump at shadows. 

Posted
11 hours ago, spacesailor said:

But this " whitey " has descendants with a smidgen of " colour " in them , 

And do belong to some mob .

With of course a little help their cousins don't get .

Also a neice with Ms or something Similar,  and gets lots of help from the 

Compulsory insurance scheme. 

spacesailor

 

This seems to be at the centre of most resentment of our Indig people: the perception that they are getting something the rest of us don’t. (Often stirred up by overpaid radio jocks).

Plenty of white fellas have always got more than the rest- do we hate them too?

  • Agree 1
  • Winner 1
Posted
2 hours ago, Old Koreelah said:

This seems to be at the centre of most resentment of our Indig people: the perception that they are getting something the rest of us don’t. (Often stirred up by overpaid radio jocks).

Plenty of white fellas have always got more than the rest- do we hate them too?

Alan Joyce trashes Qantas and walks away with a $24m final pay.

Yet the thought of aboriginal people (who die earlier and suffer more medical conditions in general) getting medicine slightly cheaper, fires up the dog-whistled.

Perspective people. 

  • Winner 2
Posted

Recently my wife and her friend stopped in the street to talk with a local Aboriginal bloke we all once taught. A few minutes later he dropped dead.


He’d had a life of health problems and had not been very productive, but was always very polite and respectful to us, his old teachers. Who knows what his life might have been like had he been born into a different world.

  • Informative 1
  • Sad 2
Posted

"Productive" is the cause of my dissatisfaction with the abos. There are some workers among them, but in the main they are not contributors. So yes, they are getting something for nothing. The fact that we have oligarchs in our society is a poor argument... I personally would tax Joyce and other over-paid types much more than they are. As well as the super-rich, especially those who did it with inherited money. To say that we condone the implied corruption is not correct. 

And I would use some of their money to pay for more anti-corruption measures, and the abos would be treated just the same as the rest of us. That is, pretty good if you can't afford necessities and health stuff.

 

  • Agree 1
Posted

The problem with the Voice is that it's a politicians response to a group of permanently angry, loud and aggressive people - some of whom have tenuous links to Indigenous ancestry - who claim to be representative of all Indigenes in Australia - and representative of their demands. I have yet to see where this was agreed upon, amongst the huge number of Indigenous groups.

 

AFAIC, the money spent on the Voice - and on many other useless Indigenous "programmes", which mainly seem to benefit public servants in Canberra and the few contractors and consultants who are "in" on the Indigenous Programmes - would be better spent, giving direct assistance to the real helpers amongst the Indigenes - such as Lindsay Greatorex, who in my mind, deserves a major gong for his untiring work in trying to bring so many Indigenes in remote areas up to speed, in the critical areas of law-abiding behaviour, education and training.

 

This bloke is a "proper" Elder in my eyes, unlike the "professional Elders" who circulate only amongst politicians and public servants.

 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-11-23/call-for-more-aboriginal-legal-aid-offers-in-western-australia/11709126

  • Like 1
  • Agree 2
  • Winner 1
Posted

Leave " Joyce " alone , just a litte leprechaun. 

Compared to that ' Macquarie bank ' Ceo 's $ 53 million per year . Plus that big golden handshake .

Not even half a year's salary . It would have been Bad for Qantas to go ' bankrupt. 

He did what was needed AND took a pay cut. 

spacesailor

 

 

Posted

I would put the 99% tax rate at about 5 million dollars. This would ensure that Joyce and that banker both paid a lot more than they have done.

Incidentally, Space, the payout of some banker got me to not pay money into a bank-managed fund. They had just paid a banker a golden handshake of 20 million, and I realized that it could have been 200 million with the same background laws.

 

  • Sad 1
Posted

And Nev, the pension is meant to spare us the sight of starving old people as we try and use the streets. My Auntie Pat did better than that, she paid for private medical insurance and football club membership as well.

I reckon that if you own your own home then the pension is not too bad. And I reckon that downsizing houses should be encouraged if the oldy no longer needs to commute.

  • Like 1
  • Informative 1
Posted
5 hours ago, Bruce Tuncks said:

if you own your own home then the pension is not too bad

You're right Bruce, under normal circumstances, but with increases in things like gas and electricity, insurances, medical expenses with outdated Medicare rebates, etc., things get a bit tight. Pensions aren't keeping up with the increasing cost of living. But I am better off than someone on a mortgage or who is renting.

  • Informative 1
Posted

If you have been lucky, and/or sensible, by the time you retire you should have acquired all the material things that you need to live comfortably. The lucky part is in securing the roof over your head. Being assured of the permanency of your residence, and owning everything in it that you need to live in it frees up a lot of your income from whatever sources. The problem is trying to survive the piranhas like energy suppliers, supermarkets, medical professionals and the like whose only goal is to strip your money from you.

 

 

  • Like 2
  • Agree 1
Posted

You missed the rip-off " rates " , " house insurance " and contents insurance. 

We had to make claim on out " house policy." , only to have then say " we are Not maintaining the house " to their insurance standard . We had to prove that was untrue . 

Before we had their last " temporary repair " fixed properly.  ( we were not told our storm damage had a temporary repair ) .

spacesailor

 

 

  • Sad 1

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...