Federal Politics

Again do you have a link to this interview. It’s a bit hard to understand it without the context.

I think it has been pretty clear from the outset that they want indigenous people recognised in our constitution. That is the sole purpose. It’s again this misinformation that you are holding onto that Malcolm Turnbull and Barnaby Joyce created (and later declared that it wasn’t the case). All of these proposals have been around for years. If you google there is a stack of information on what the purpose of it is.

Just be careful of this misinformation. This amendment is not there to trick anyone. It’s to give our First Nations recognition in our constitution and to allow them a voice to our government. Perhaps if they had that voice Things like changing an indigenous hospital name to the queen wouldn’t happen.

How is this idea different from ATSIC?

1 Like

It’s very similar to ATSIC just with the addition of having it enshrined in the Constitution.

For start it’ll be enshrined in the constitution hence the need for a referendum. An ATSIC like body could be established tomorrow by an act of parliament. Hopefully without the lingering smell of corruption around it.

1 Like

They already have a voice to our government. The same representation that non-indigenous people have. What is proposed is additional representation.

So again, how would your example of the hospital name thing work practically? What if parliament ignored the voice?

Also who makes the determination as to who is a First Nations person? All of these questions blew up with ATSIC.

2 Likes

Again give it a google and look at how the Canadian referendum worked. There are answers out there. Just not trust the misinformation that is provided. Like any good democracy there are ideas thrown around all the time. I guess when there is something that relates to indigenous Australians this group will be consulted to get an idea. It’s not a governing body. Governments have a range of bodies they go to for guidance. It’s nothing abnormal or scary.

maybe, but ive not seen them and if i haven’t (someone who is extremely politically engaged) than odds are “normies” have not.

I’m still on the fence about this referendum, and only when i get answers to the following questions will i be satisfied enough to vote yes.

  1. what form will this voice take? I know it won’t be a 3rd chamber, but will it be for example, a committee?

  2. who will be on this voice and how will they be appointed? will be ATSIC style elections or will it be political appointments?

  3. what powers will they have? will it have, for example veto powers? will legislation still be presented even if the voice says they do not agree?

  4. what’s to stop a government that’s anti -voice to parliament, defunding it, appointing a friendly “voice” and having them do nothing?

i’m not anti voice, i just want detail rather than broad ideological statements about how if you vote no your a racist

4 Likes

that’s an easy one. The constitution is what will prevent that from happening, that’s the point of the referendum, otherwise this would just be everyday legislation.

except it really doesn’t - unless the change explicitly says how it will operate and is enshrined in the constitution it would be very easy for a government to do this

I’m afraid you are absolutely correct. If you have a look at the proposed wording from Albanese the third point explicitly says that

“Parlaiment shall … have the power to make laws with respect to the composition, functions, powers and procedures of the … voice.”

This is what is annoying me about the whole thing. Many are just wanting to wave this thing through with sentiment and sweeping statements (and yes, virtue signalling), without really thinking about how it will operate practically, including the potential pitfalls.

1 Like

Another day, another disgusting remark by Hanson. They’d prefer to see Australia burn to the ground rather than being united.

How she hasn’t been sued for defamation is beyond me.

2 Likes

Agree, Pauline’s comments are way out of line and extremely inappropriate.

However, this should not be used any excuse to let Senator Faruqi off the hook for her original remarks, which were insensitive at best, if not downright appalling, especially in their timing. She needs to be held accountable for those remarks as well and should also apologise as she too is guilty of fanning the flames of division.

I’m not a fan of Senator Faruqi or Thorpe or the likes and their somewhat OTT and one-dimensional view of the world. But then again when you’ve got the likes of Hanson and Roberts etc, it makes the Greens seem relatively sane by comparison. I’d like them to use facts and logic to push back against the radical extremism/fascism of the far right in One Nation. Empathy and emotions will only get you so far.

Senator Faruqi’s comments were not great (Adam Bandt as the leader of the Greens was much more measured) but Pauline’s comments were beyond repugnant.

1 Like

Didn’t Bandt refuse to stand in front of the country’s flag?

3 Likes

We were referring to the Queen’s death. Bandt, despite his and The Greens’ disdain for the monarchy, spoke about the Queen’s death with respect rather than Faruqi’s comment about how she cannot mourn the death of a conqueror (words to that effect).

I don’t agree with everything the Greens does but I have to give credit when warranted. Bandt generally conducts himself well with campaigning and activism. Faruqi and Thorpe on the other hand can go rogue very easily.

Anyway any of what I said above isn’t an excuse for Pauline Hanson to spew her racist bile in parliament. She’s a disgrace that needs to go into a sin bin until she learns respect.

2 Likes

My point is there is a line multiple people in the Greens are running with, it all seems to be tying together into a certain narrative, and I just don’t like it. If they hate the country so much, then there are several hundred countries that they can go through the processes to move to if they are so repulsed by the work that generations before put in to bring us into the first-world democratic country that we are, regardless of what the daily whingers would have you believe.

3 Likes

The Greens are worse. Bandt refusing to stand in front of the Country’s flag was before The Queen’s death. That ACTION is worse and MORE divisive than any words Pauline Hanson has said. That action has created more hatred towards our country.

2 Likes

I don’t necessarily agree though, Hanson is a terrible talker, a lot of what comes out in the media bites comes across in poor taste. She is unelectable with the mass population because of it.

1 Like

Not sure how that action is worse than Pauline Hanson vilifying and offending people based on their ethnicity?

Sure I don’t agree with Bandt’s action nor a lot of what the Greens make themselves out to be but it’s not like he called the Queen offensive names or anything, now that’s something that should be rightfully condemned.

In some ways both the Greens and One Nation represents the ugly sides of the political extremes. Hence why I don’t vote for either of them.

1 Like