Federal Politics

That’s disappointing, the reasons they give are not reasons to oppose it, they are reasons to not care and not take a position. Opposing is unnecessarily divisive.

They say that they oppose it because they find it meaningless, I think they oppose it because they want status quo (aka continual failure of recognition of Aboriginal Australians).

On another note, love the fact that Angus Taylor is the butt of all jokes of the Labor Frontbench every time he goes up to the dispatch box. Shows how useless he is. Is Dutton one of the most hidden and useless opposition leaders we’ve seen this century? We’ve heard the likes of Abbott, Shorten etc scream up the hill every Parliamentary sitting yet he just sits there looking like a shining sad potato. Instead we keep hearing from the arrogant pricks like Paul Fletcher, Sussan Ley and Ted O’Brien.

Bridget Archer says she’s considering to vote for the censure motion against Scomo. Good on her for standing against that sort of stinking corruption when he was PM. Goes to show that not all hope is lost (yet) for the Coalition.

1 Like

They also make it hard to have any reasoned discussion whether the proposal has merit - I really dont like the idea that parliament can set (and subsequently alter) the parameters on how the voice will operate

1 Like

David Littleproud said that Aboriginal elders in his Queensland electorate of Maranoa have not been consulted about the Voice. If the claim is true, that’s the fault of the federal government.

Also why does Jacinta Price oppose the Voice? She should be joining other Indigenous leaders in supporting the proposal and the Uluru Statement from the Heart. The referendum won’t succeed if there is division among Indigenous people.

She’s the worst.

Must have so much hate in heart for her own background. She’s a regular nut case on sky news. Some how she engages in reverse racism. Such a vile person.

Says it all. She’s a hypocrite in general.

Or so he thinks.

That electorate is so right wing even if there wasn’t any problems, they’d probably oppose it for the sake of opposing it anyway.

1 Like

Well like it or not there IS division amongst indigenous Australians on this issue. I personally have indigenous friends and family who have different opinions on it.

I find it alarming that some on this forum are so one-eyed in their unquestioning support. There are different opinions on this issue. The automatic assumption by some that people MUST support it I find very disturbing.

Who are you to tell Jacinta Price what she SHOULD be thinking or doing? I don’t have any opinion on her either way but you don’t have the right to say what she should be doing, it frankly comes across as paternalism.


That’s actually very offensive. Who are you to tell anyone they have hate in their heart? The irony of a white person telling an indigenous Australian what they should think particularly on this matter is simply astonishing.

1 Like

David Littleproud really struggled to answer Waleeds basic questions on The Project. He either doesn’t understand the issue or does not believe his own position.

Hold up, are you saying because she’s Aboriginal she should, by default, agree to the Voice? This doesn’t seem like a very balanced view.


I think a lot of the dislike for Jacinta Price is that even though she is a politician of Aboriginal descent and one would think she’s a fierce supporter of Aboriginal people’s rights and opportunities in Australia, a lot of her suggestions and ideas are in fact counterproductive towards the very cause that she fights for, not to mention that some of her views are by nature quite repugnant by itself.

I mean, she doesn’t have to support the voice and no one should be compelled to but maybe she should consider offering some important ideas that would prove to be effective alternative approaches towards this issue.

I agree, but we both know this through witnessing her as a politician. I’m more concerned about those who don’t know her for her politics making assumptions that she’d just support any Indigenous cause because she’s Indigenous.

1 Like

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.”



Doesn’t he have constituents to represent? How are MPs allowed to pocket a second income on the side? Public servants can’t do it.

He just has an axe to grind with China. Also his advice on dealing with China’s aggression in the Indo-Pacific should be ignored.

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.

Senator David Pocock’s attempt to amend the legislation also failed.

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