This is massively underestimated, particularly within progressive media. There is absolutely an attitude that there should be bipartisan support despite the contentious nature of the Voice among First Nations people - to say the least, it’s incredibly condescending.
It also doesn’t help that, in their usual fashion, the Nationals are trying to attribute this to a rural/remote vs city divide (i.e. that only people from metro areas support the Voice to Parliament). Conservative-leaning media, which mostly talks to people in the suburbs, love this. Yet, anecdotely at least, most of the dissent I’ve read against the Voice has come from First Nations people living in metro areas.
Sadly the nature of a referendum means only the most watered down version of the Voice, palatable to most people has any chance of passing. How impactful this body is then is a secondary goal.
For those unaware, here’s a few excerpts of what Jacinta said yesterday in a press conference:
“Just because you’re Indigenous, it does not automatically make you marginalised. There’s no evidence that this Voice to Parliament is going to support these individuals…We need to stop dividing our nation along the lines of race…We need practical measures, not an idea that lacks complete and utter detail that’s based on emotional blackmail.”
The Coalition supported Greens’ amendments to expand the power of the NACC inspector, and the bill will now return to the House of Representatives.
However, the Greens and other crossbenchers were unsuccessful in their attempt to amend the legislation to remove the “exceptional circumstances” clause for public hearings, and require the government of the day to gain the support of at least one non-government member on the NACC oversight committee to approve the appointment of a commissioner or inspector … to ensure future governments would not have total control over appointments.
I’m not sure why Labor won’t support the amendments of the crossbench regarding pork-barrelling and exceptional circumstances. It would allow integrity to be stood at its highest level and stick the boot right into the Coalition whose pork-barrelling is off the charts.
It’s not that surprising, neither major party wants anything that defines the scope of pork barrelling. Labor for all their bluster about stopping the practice were only really interested in stopping the coalitions selected projects
I’m surprised there aren’t more carveouts to be honest
The House of Representatives have passed a motion of censure against former PM Scott Morrison, after an inquiry found his secret appointment to multiple ministries during the COVID-19 pandemic undermined trust in government.
Later, the House unanimously passed a bill to establish the National Anti-Corruption Commission. The NACC will be set up by the middle of 2023.
There was a vote on the motion. Karen Andrews abstained from the vote. Fellow Liberal MP Bridget Archer, the Greens and the crossbench (minus Bob Katter) supported the motion.
Well there’s one that fell back on what she said earlier.
At least there’s one who’s loyal to integrity and stands up to the values of the political system.
Can we take him out the back and…actually never mind.
I was kind of hoping that the speaker can name him, then the House moves to suspend him for the next 3 sittings from next year, without pay.
Scomo was at it with his typical ‘Sorry not sorry’ attitude today and deflecting blame at Labor for playing a political game. It seems some things would never change.
I wonder if the government moved a No Confidence motion would that have any implications on Scomo? Would he be forced to resign in that case or can he be sacked? It would be great to see the continual downfall of this fool who’s been a stain on Australian politics by his own doing every time he was elected to office.
AFAIK, a no-confidence motion can only be moved against the Government, a minister (including the PM), and the Speaker of the House. The Censure motion is about the most the House can do in regards to a backbench member.
I agree that Scott Morrison behaved inappropriately, and whilst a censure would fit the bill as a punishment for his actions, I can’t help but feel this looks bad on Albanese. Albanese’s done a very good job in his first six months as PM, and whilst he is censuring Morrison for the right reasons, I just think it’s a bad look and looks petty by Albanese - who has been very calm and measured, focusing on getting things done rather than political point scoring. This just seems like an obvious attempt by Labor to take a free hit on the Liberals (but I completely agree that Morrison is in the wrong for his actions).
As I implied in my post, I too want Morrison to be held accountable. What he did was wrong. But what is a Censure really going to achieve? I just think it looks bad on Albanese’s part and screams political point scoring, Labor v Liberal, petty politics.
How do? Didn’t Bridget Archer, independents and greens all cross? To me it screens liberal vs the rest of australia. And it’s again a reason why the liberals are so out of touch with what australia wants. The quicker the liberals put Bridget archer in as leader the quicker they can build back respect and voters.
I think the justification for it lies with the fact that this motion acts as a symbolic warning to every politician in the joint that if they try to pull a slimy one then they will (and should) get punished one way or another. Scomo’s lucky he’s on the backbench and not in government otherwise he could’ve faced No Confidence.
If Albo didn’t pursue it then it would set the precedent that such actions can be easily ignored without repercussions. I think it’s the right move to censure Scomo and the majority of the House agrees.
