improper? You think people have to vote for the ALP or the coalition!!!
If people dont like either party they have to vote for one of them anyway, as it is a 2 party system. you idea of democracy is people should vote for who they are told to vote for and not who they want or dont want to vote for
nothing could get me to vote for either of these 2 corrupt parties and it my choice not to and you or any government wont be able to make me
School holidays are the best.
There was a Federal aboriginal advisory body, and the Liberals abolished it.
Which is why aboriginal and Torres straight islander elders, are wanting to put into the constitutionā¦ā¦ so it canāt be abolished.
Ok, thanks for engaging in serious discussion.
I broadly agree with the first part of that. The final sentence is why many people of good will who are not just intentionally engaged in gesture politics for reconciliation and a good vibe, will vote YES. This includes some of the originators who I respect, including Noel Pearson and Marcia Langton.
But neither your brief comment nor the longer materials I have read present a case specifically arguing how it follows from the need for people who actually understand what needs to be done to close the gap being involved has a better chance of being achieved as a result of success in an electoral campaign for including the wish for it in the Constitution.
My view is that the same people who donāt listen and spout good vibes would continue to do so and legislate about who they want to ārepresentā the āclientsā of their āindustryā.
Unlike the NO campaign I donāt think that will be significantly worse than the current situation in itself.
But I think less people are likely to think seriously about what actually needs to be done in the unlikely event the referendum is won than if it is defeated.
My guess (which is only speculation) as to why people like Noel Pearson and Marcia Langton made the mistake of getting themselves involved in this campaign is that the alternative from what they know they are facing in the way of gestures by bureaucrats (including some indigenous) who wonāt listen would be another meaningless āpreambleā type of declaration that would be rejected, and did not expect that this form of recognition would become a competition for kudos between the two parties.
I would rather see a larger impact on making people actually think resulting from less people voting NO and instead casting informal ballots.
It is too late for a significant campaign to have an impact but many would be rejecting both sides already for the reasons adequately explained by each side about the other.
If that resulted in the gap between the two sides being smaller than the margin by which the referendum was won and lost, I think that would make people think.
In the highly unlikely event that it resulted in YES actually defeating a reduced NO vote I still think it would produce more serious thinking than if YES won.
But given the current reality of how the YES campaign just waffled it may simply reduce the YES vote even further thus increasing the conviction among the minority that the majority are stupid and racist.
At the same time those among the YES campaign that are capable of thinking and engaging seriously would have to think about how the informal voters would have reacted if they had actually been able to answer the simple question WHY?
Poll here will still be up till at least Wednesday for additional or changed votes:
Impressive. This is the cognitive dissonance Iāve heard of?
I am genuinely surprised at you saying that.
If it was intended to be sarcastic I did fail to understand that.
I basically agree with what you said, whether or not you do.
Thanks. I have looked up Kos Samara tweets via his Wikipedia page and am looking forward to checking the full polling analysis tomorrow:
It is a complete side issue but I cannot resist mentioning that even putting it in the Constitution has not prevented this:
Same wording too: āThere shall be ā¦ā
101. There shall be an Inter-State Commission, with such powers of adjudication and administration as the Parliament deems necessary for the execution and maintenance, within the Commonwealth, of the provisions of this Constitution relating to trade and commerce, and of all laws made thereunder.
The saga of legislating ārepresentativesā will continue until there actually is some organization that was not imposed on them by legislation that is able to win a seat at the table, or until the gap is actually closed.
The claim by Senator Jacinta Price as well as practically everybody else that it would be dangerous because of being irremovable is simply false.
Her real concern is that it would entrench the existing structures that have failed by enabling them to claim to be ārepresentativesā and make it more difficult for a government to actually hold them accountable. She is the shadow Minister for Indigenous Affairs and wants to actually challenge the existing failed structures that Ministry supervises. As she mentioned they found it awkward being questioned on Senate estimates committees and she wants to make life more awkward for the failures.
Edit add:
BTW the decision to abolish ATSIC was supported by both parties and widely welcomed because it was a corrupt failure known as Gary Foley mentioned as āAboriginals Talking Sh.t In Canberraā
L8R gone
Itās the layers of wrong thatās really impressive.
Iām way behind in this discussion, so please excuse my ignorance. For the āvoiceā proposal to succeed, apart from the majority of states bit, in any one state, is the challenge to get greater than 50% of the votes cast that are considered to be valid. ?. If that is the case, the yes campaigners will be " happy" for people to write why on their bit of paper, ?. ( as an aside, is the AEC saying that a tick in either the yes or no box will be counted as a valid vote, but a cross will not?)
As to assertions of corruption of ATSIC, see footnote 5 in the APH Quick Guide series on its site :
Papers in other series on this site relevant to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders can be searched by topic.
( For those who want to get out of the shallow end and/or better accuracy on the facts than Wikipedia)
Have you received the AEC mail out?
From the AEC site on Media Advice: Referendum Voting Instructions
More detail on the site . The AEC media advice warns that much of the media reporting is incorrect.
Are you serious? Many on here have answered why time and time again and you obviously either ignore or donāt read it
ATSICās abolishment was supported by the Labor party (I believe Labor voted for its abolishment in both houses). LNP was in government but both major parties felt that ASIC had been a failure. Current Prime Minister himself voted to abolish ATSIC
As posted previously, the ATSIC legislation that was rescinded bore no resemblance to the ATSIC legislation passed under the Hawke Government.
@bigallan I get the feeling you donāt believe ATSIC was corrupt. I have no idea and will confess Iām not close enough to all of the facts. However, if ATSIC wasnāt corrupt and it was an effective body - why did Labor vote to abolish ATSIC ?
The implication being that the LNP would have voted for it to be abolished if it were effective and not corrupt.
( I have no idea if it was corrupt or not but I recall it did not have a good reputation)
No not implying that at all. But one poster seems firmly of the view that ATSIC was effective and not corrupt (thatās my impression of their position). My question is - if this were the case (ie ATSIC was effective and not corrupt) - why would Labor have voted to abolish it (including our current PM)?
I know you werenāt, but I believe it to be true. Thereās no way the LNP would tolerate an effective Indigenous Rights body, especially if that said body were to come into conflict with the mining sector over land rights
You might be right but that wasnāt the point I was raising. Whatās you view as to why Labor voted to abolish ATSIC (including Albo)?