If you oppose the voice that’s your decision but you seem to be fervently opposed to it (and anything Labor offers) when you have neither a good reasoning or have provided deliberate misinformation.
The voice to parliament is only an advisory body that advises the government policy makers on bills that affects indigenous Australians. Not a third chamber after the Lower House and Senate. It’s only limited to advising policies related to First Nations.
If it’s a third chamber (as you imply) then the whole nation would be opposing it.
But the way it’s being modeled pretty much every policy would have relevance to our mobs, brothers and sisters, and with the 24 being selected at the behest of the Government of the day it will only be full of “yes” people primarily from Melbourne and Sydney with a token vote for the other mainland capitals and a singular voice for the regions (2 if we’re lucky) whom if they continually disagree with what is being proposed can be replaced without going to any type of vote. In essence it’s just another layer of bureaucracy rather than an extra chamber, which is in effect what we have now with the various councils and advisory bodies.
If we’re being honest nothing’s really been achieved since K-Rudd’s apology.
Except that it doesn’t, in fact, the proposal gives them very little power - stop taking everything that is said on Sky News as gospel and do your own research into it.
Beyond a constitutional amendment, it doesn’t exist yet - and that appears to be a planned maneuver as a way to avoid some of the issues that were experienced during the republic campaign that derailed the move.
What they have released is the structure of what they will take to parliament for the Voice’s operating model.
This is where there probably needs to be a little more detail, if only to make it clearer what they’ll be consulted on - a statement like this can be interpreted to be incredibly broad, especially when it is combined with the broadening of the Voice’s remit to Executive Government.
The way the panel is going to be made up is a real head-scratcher - its designed to be inclusive and for all First Nations, but the number of available positions is nowhere near the number of nations.
He said something about alteration to the wording to the current version of the referendum question or something like that. That is quite sensible to do.
Stan Grant is going to be a real liability to the Yes campaign. A few people at my work watched him on the coronation coverage, for the first time they were tempted to vote No. The Yes campaign needs to send a positive message, Albo has the right idea. Stan Grant’s divisive, holier-than-thou attitude is very off putting. And that was when he was interacting with Julian Leeser, a fellow Yes person. Who does he think he is winning over by being so nasty?
Stan Grant is a massive liability to the Yes campaign. His rantings are exactly the type of thing that puts off many people, myself included. What many people actually fear is not the Voice itself, but that if it is passed then it will be a never-ending stream of “truth” telling, blaming and guilt. It will open the floodgates for the likes of Grant to spray this sort of stuff even more…forever. Believe me, a lot of peopleI talk to will vote no simply to try and stop stuff like this. If the ABC is trying to push a Yes vote (which they shouldn’t be by the way), then putting people like Grant on a Coronation broadcast was a massive mistake.
Lol when will you get a new stick? I mean seriously you are just purpertrating the attitude of those who won’t recognise Indigenous people in the constitution. You just simple hate for people standing up to the white mans bullshit. Get a new stick pal. Quite frankly you are being more decisive by spreading this anti Stan Grant campaign. Says a lot about the liberal party and it’s crown arrogant jewels.
Settle down. What are you even talking about? A “new stick”?
And maybe proof-read your response, it actually makes no sense and uses the wrong words out of context. You are simply ranting and embarrassing yourself.
Also, by the way I’m not a Liberal voter, so maybe check your own biases and prejudices. People like you are in for a rude shock when you finally realise it’s not a left/right issue.
Spot on. Stan used to be respectable as a journalist. Now he’s another person that has to be ignored because of belligerency. Stuck in the past and nothing will ever be good enough because they enjoy playing the victim too much.
How ironic is it when he’s of Indigenous heritage and in the process of trying to argue for the voice actually does the opposite with the way he’s carrying on about things especially during the coronation which was nauseating to watch? He’s entitled to his opinions but he needs to read the room and offer insights at the right times especially if he wants to gain momentum for the campaign.
If that’s his way of promoting his stance on the voice with his tone-deaf approach on coronation night (which was not the best of timings) then maybe he should stick to his analysis of foreign affairs.
Stan Grant has absolute every right to criticise the current and past government and discuss issues relevant issues to his culture Anne his people. I have not seen one evidence that is being suggested by two members here that he’s been polarising in the slightest. If anything it has been Peter Dutton and the no brigade. They are afraid of change. White people are afraid of recognising the traditional owners in the constitution. You saw it with the Howard government, Abbott Government and Morrison Government.
Do I agree that there should have been more consultation ? I think so, but there is only so far you can allow racist liberal politicians to destroy something that Indeginous people have every right, Why should the constitution only recognise white people ?
I’m hardly a monarchist and am a supporter of the voice to parliament but even I must say Stan’s presence wasn’t a good choice and could potentially fuel the No Campaign which thrives on the fact that the voice is allegedly divisive. He’s giving them exactly what they want even though it’s not his intention.
The Constitution recognises all Australians currently. White or black or whatever.
But before you jump to yet another false assumption, I support recognition of indigenous Australians in the Constitution, but am unsure of the merits of the additional step of the Voice. They are two different things. You can have recognition without the Voice component in the Constitition. This is the current Liberal position.
Again, before you jump to another conclusion, I am a Labor voter.
The no campaign and it’s voters clearly were already going to attack Stan not matter what.
Why should he remain silent on something that’s important in his cultural background?
Look I get that some people want to kiss the Monarchs ass but there are people like me who think Stan is standing up for what he wants for his people and is sick of tired of the whites washing it as if it doesn’t matter.
I’m not saying you are doing thAt, but there is clearly some racisim from certain forum members here that really anger me with their stance . Because they are worried about their perfect white existence and how that it will affect their back yard . So these members clutch at nothing but outdated views and have no idea about the implications of the impact of the history of the First Nation. Clearly if these people did they wouldn’t be throwing these nonsensical attacks which deters their argument.
I’m not saying you do that but there is two particular people on here who do and I’ll call out their racisim. If they don’t want to vote for yea fine but understand the ramifications of what you write that will hurt particular people using vocals such as “get over it” “it’s in the past.”
The no campaign is the problem not Stan. It’s the way they conduct themselves too
The no campaign all make it divisive because they are worried about their white status. That’s all.
There’s actually only one person throwing around racist statements and “nonsensical attacks” on here…
Also, nobody is saying Stan Grant can’t express his views. It’s about whether the publicly-funded ABC’s coverage of the Coronation was the appropriate time and place. Just as Stan can express his views, others can also express THEIR view that it wasn’t the time or place, and also question the ABC’s wisdom in airing that program at all as part of the Coronation coverage. In my opinion it was failure to read the room by both Stan and the ABC.
And ultimately we all lose because rather than allowing for a rational discussion of the positions of both sides we label those who are against it as being racist.
when will you get a new stick? I mean seriously you are just purpertrating the attitude of those who won’t recognise Indigenous people in the constitution. You just simple hate for people standing up to the white mans bullshit. Get a new stick pal. Quite frankly you are being more decisive by spreading this anti Stan Grant campaign. Says a lot about the liberal party and it’s crown arrogant jewels.