AusCelebs Forums

View active topics It is currently Fri Sep 22, 2023 11:54 am



Reply to topic 
 [ 38 posts ] 
 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice referendum 

How will you be voting in the upcoming Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice referendum?
Undecided 4%  4%  [ 7 ]
Firm Yes 32%  32%  [ 58 ]
Undecided Yes 4%  4%  [ 7 ]
Firm No 55%  55%  [ 100 ]
Undecided No 5%  5%  [ 10 ]
Total votes : 182

 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice referendum 
Message Author

Postby phunkyfeelone » Thu Aug 17, 2023 7:12 am


Tombslayer wrote:
Did Albo really just says "No I have read the 26 pages, why should I".


Yep.

A referendum, millions of funds, dividing the country, and he hasn't even had the respect to read it in full because "1 page"

Tough one for the Left to defend, I reckon this might sink it for good.


Martin Prince
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2004 2:59 pm
Posts: 3268
Karma: 236.84 (7740 thanks)

Location: The Land of Chocolate
Thu Aug 17, 2023 7:12 am
Profile

Postby fya69 » Tue Sep 05, 2023 10:24 am


For those that are voting "YES" to "The Voice" referendum - here is one of the chief architect's of the Uluru Statement from the Heart is really about (The basis of this Clown of a Prime-minister's referendum...) 'Voice first, Treaty second' and warning 'treaties are about reparations', "Land right's", "Resources" etc. etc. etc for only 3.059187315717% of the Australian population.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... 0081496202

Make up you own minds people and top this madness...


1
Jimbo Jones
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2011 10:17 am
Posts: 209
Karma: 328.23 (686 thanks)

Location: In bed.... with your Sister, Mother, Aunt & Grandma.
Tue Sep 05, 2023 10:24 am
Profile WWW

Postby Damienpayne » Tue Sep 05, 2023 4:23 pm


I would simply ask for one question of mine to be contemplated.

Does the Voice elevate issues of one group above others?

If they were being ignored or abandoned beforehand, and this corrects it, then aye.
If, like i hope is the situation, they were openly considered in due course and time like everything else, then is there any actual need for the voice.
or, worse case scenario, does this create a superiority inflex(gr) that prioritises all those involved?


Monty Burns

Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2017 5:36 pm
Posts: 60
Karma: 86.21 (50 thanks)
Tue Sep 05, 2023 4:23 pm
Profile

Postby impalethe » Wed Sep 06, 2023 12:22 am


Damienpayne wrote:
I would simply ask for one question of mine to be contemplated.

Does the Voice elevate issues of one group above others?

If they were being ignored or abandoned beforehand, and this corrects it, then aye.
If, like i hope is the situation, they were openly considered in due course and time like everything else, then is there any actual need for the voice.
or, worse case scenario, does this create a superiority inflex(gr) that prioritises all those involved?


Yes It does elevate issues of one group above others and the issues were not ignored various organisations were given money to fix the issues they didn't and either squandered or misappropriated much of it.
But as one aboriginal leader said the people in charge don't want to fix the problems otherwise the government funding (AKA gravy train) will stop.
One thing that was working was the EFTPOS card that limited spending to essentials and the alcohol bans and they were stopped so they could say they need the voice


Monty Burns

Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2014 12:29 pm
Posts: 70
Karma: 140.00 (98 thanks)
Wed Sep 06, 2023 12:22 am
Profile

Postby Damienpayne » Wed Sep 06, 2023 11:45 am


impalethe wrote:
Damienpayne wrote:
I would simply ask for one question of mine to be contemplated.

Does the Voice elevate issues of one group above others?

If they were being ignored or abandoned beforehand, and this corrects it, then aye.
If, like i hope is the situation, they were openly considered in due course and time like everything else, then is there any actual need for the voice.
or, worse case scenario, does this create a superiority inflex(gr) that prioritises all those involved?


Yes It does elevate issues of one group above others and the issues were not ignored various organisations were given money to fix the issues they didn't and either squandered or misappropriated much of it.
But as one aboriginal leader said the people in charge don't want to fix the problems otherwise the government funding (AKA gravy train) will stop.
One thing that was working was the EFTPOS card that limited spending to essentials and the alcohol bans and they were stopped so they could say they need the voice


Thank you for the insight.

May I ask, and you do not have to respond, where does that leave you in the decision ?


Monty Burns

Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2017 5:36 pm
Posts: 60
Karma: 86.21 (50 thanks)
Wed Sep 06, 2023 11:45 am
Profile

Postby impalethe » Fri Sep 08, 2023 2:41 am


Damienpayne wrote:

May I ask, and you do not have to respond, where does that leave you in the decision ?


Definite No. Giving them a Government funded lobby group is just another way to make the gravy train bigger and a near impossible one to shut down. Here is one for you the aboriginal Land council in NSW alone has approximately approximately 40,000 claims in progress (approximately 4000 have succeeded) sometimes these claims have been found to be backed by developers who buy the land from the council/elder who claims it they are often done in secret with only a few councillors knowledge an example in progress https://www.mosmancollective.com/genera ... h-reserve/

The ones crying poor are keeping it for themselves from their own website https://alc.org.au/newsroom/the-value-of-land-councils/
"The 1983 Land Rights legislation gives us freehold title to crown land. This means you can sell it, develop it or go into a joint-venture partnership. It’s amazing. We’re not reliant on government funding." In the legislation "Under Part 3 of the NSW Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1983, the Council was to be funded each year by 7.5 per cent of land tax revenue" supposedly ended in 1998 This is NSW every state has the same

Imagine if you could just point at a bit of land then say its yours and with a little of secret negotiation take its title and like a charity explain that 99% goes into running the charity. Now think what they will do when they can tell cabinet what they want


1
Monty Burns

Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2014 12:29 pm
Posts: 70
Karma: 140.00 (98 thanks)
Fri Sep 08, 2023 2:41 am
Profile

Postby impalethe » Fri Sep 08, 2023 2:47 am


I'll leave this here as to why government generally doesn't work. the Voice and all the entities supposedly helping are the same

S 602x625 34


Monty Burns

Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2014 12:29 pm
Posts: 70
Karma: 140.00 (98 thanks)
Fri Sep 08, 2023 2:47 am
Profile

Postby HumphreyBBear » Fri Sep 08, 2023 4:59 am


impalethe wrote:
I'll leave this here as to why government generally doesn't work.

So you support absolute autocracy; assuming you're the autocrat in charge, right? :grin:


Mary Bailey
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2005 7:45 pm
Posts: 748
Karma: 78.45 (586 thanks)
Fri Sep 08, 2023 4:59 am
Profile

Postby impalethe » Fri Sep 08, 2023 5:47 pm


HumphreyBBear wrote:
impalethe wrote:
I'll leave this here as to why government generally doesn't work.

So you support absolute autocracy; assuming you're the autocrat in charge, right? :grin:

Actually I support tougher penalties on public officials who use their position to graft the system. A public official who takes a bribe causing poor quality building, higher taxes, laws skewed to only those that can afford to fight etc. causes suicides and losses due to these policies affecting a large majority in a negative way. (The current problems with developers and poor quality buildings as an example, everyone in the industry knew what was going on, How developers were using the buildings to wash drug money but officials did nothing and now the taxpayer and insurance backed by the tax payer will be paying for the repairs or the purchasers of these garbage buildings)
The penalties should include 10 times the damage plus bribe and total reparations and include those that benefited such as spouses, Directors and staff that kept quiet. Jail time for them and recipients as they knew where the money was coming from and said nothing and if a death can be attributed I would consider bringing back the death penalty.


1
Monty Burns

Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2014 12:29 pm
Posts: 70
Karma: 140.00 (98 thanks)
Fri Sep 08, 2023 5:47 pm
Profile

Postby HumphreyBBear » Sat Sep 09, 2023 1:34 am


impalethe wrote:
HumphreyBBear wrote:
impalethe wrote:
I'll leave this here as to why government generally doesn't work.

So you support absolute autocracy; assuming you're the autocrat in charge, right? :grin:

Actually I support tougher penalties on public officials who use their position to graft the system. A public official who takes a bribe causing poor quality building, higher taxes, laws skewed to only those that can afford to fight etc. causes suicides and losses due to these policies affecting a large majority in a negative way. (The current problems with developers and poor quality buildings as an example, everyone in the industry knew what was going on, How developers were using the buildings to wash drug money but officials did nothing and now the taxpayer and insurance backed by the tax payer will be paying for the repairs or the purchasers of these garbage buildings)
The penalties should include 10 times the damage plus bribe and total reparations and include those that benefited such as spouses, Directors and staff that kept quiet. Jail time for them and recipients as they knew where the money was coming from and said nothing and if a death can be attributed I would consider bringing back the death penalty.


Well, to quote the Criminal Code Act 1995, under Section 142.2 (page 432 of the linked document), Source: https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2019C00043

Quote:
142.2 Abuse of public office

(1) A Commonwealth public official is guilty of an offence if:

(a) the official:

(i) exercises any influence that the official has in the official’s capacity as a Commonwealth public official; or

(ii) engages in any conduct in the exercise of the official’s duties as a Commonwealth public official; or

(iii) uses any information that the official has obtained in the official’s capacity as a Commonwealth public official; and

(b) the official does so with the intention of:

(i) dishonestly obtaining a benefit for himself or herself or for another person; or

(ii) dishonestly causing a detriment to another person.

Penalty: Imprisonment for 5 years.

(2) A person is guilty of an offence if:

(a) the person has ceased to be a Commonwealth public official in a particular capacity; and

(b) the person uses any information that the person obtained in that capacity as a Commonwealth public official; and

(c) the person does so with the intention of:

(i) dishonestly obtaining a benefit for himself or herself or for another person; or

(ii) dishonestly causing a detriment to another person.

Penalty: Imprisonment for 5 years.

(3) Paragraph (2)(a) applies to a cessation by a person:

(a) whether or not the person continues to be a Commonwealth public official in some other capacity; and

(b) whether the cessation occurred before, at or after the commencement of this section.


So, 5 years prison. Which will automatically disqualify you from standing for public office.

Sounds pretty harsh to me. Kinda ends your career, if you're convicted.


Mary Bailey
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2005 7:45 pm
Posts: 748
Karma: 78.45 (586 thanks)
Sat Sep 09, 2023 1:34 am
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic 
 [ 38 posts ] 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: elnacho23, theek25 and 15 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Designed by ST Software for PTF.