The Voice. An Australian referendum

[LB 15]

To a Blackfella do you think?

How Anthony Albanese is raking in $104,520 a year on top of his PM salary by renting out his two homes - all while living at the Lodge paid for by working Aussies​

• Anthony Albanese has rented out his old home in Sydney's Marrickville
• Advertised for $1350 a week, while Dulwich Hill property rented for $660
• Previous PMs including Scott Morrison have not rented out their homes

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11724895/How-Anthony-Albanese-raking-100-000-year-renting-two-homes.html

 

[LB 15]

My son won his first race in that regatta at the age of 10

A 10 foot salty is a better insentive than chips and coke back at the club.

 

[LB 15]

Anybody seen Random? He seems to have gone dark...well, you know what i mean.

 

[The Dark Knight]

Anybody seen Random? He seems to have gone dark...well, you know what i mean.

I got bored of his tedious memes and blocked him.

 

[LB 15]

 

[LB 15]

I got bored of his tedious memes and blocked him.

That could be it! He has put me on double secret ignore (DSI). He has joined Meli, Mikey, cumseeker and some other pussies in the LB free unicorn meta-verse.

 

[Fah Kiew Tu]

What a moron she is. I wonder if Meli has many tats. Wait. No I don't want to know...

Bad thought. A money earner, going by the pix she's posted, would be to start off naked, with a captive audience. Keep dancing/whatever while people pay money for you to put your clothes on.

It'd only take 5 minutes...

FKT

I got bored of his tedious memes and blocked him.

Same but I used the option to show he'd posted but not the content because that way you can peek. Not that I ever have with Randumb, no point.

Anyway I haven't seen any posts for a while so maybe he sucked in the dooby too hard and choked on it. No loss regardless.

FKT

 

[The Dark Knight]

Bad thought. A money earner, going by the pix she's posted, would be to start off naked, with a captive audience. Keep dancing/whatever while people pay money for you to put your clothes on.

It'd only take 5 minutes...

FKT


Same but I used the option to show he'd posted but not the content because that way you can peek. Not that I ever have with Randumb, no point.

Anyway I haven't seen any posts for a while so maybe he sucked in the dooby too hard and choked on it. No loss regardless.

FKT

I peeked and saw that he is over in some Solar panel thread trolling VVV.

So its a case of LWNJ trolling a RWNJ who is trolling LWNJ's. Dumb, dumber & dumbest.

 

[Alhadder]

Hmm. When I see you chastise others for "overstepping the mark" I might.

In relation to this part of your post - fair comment. I do think LB, FKT & DK do overstep the mark in some of their comments re you but you apparently have them on double secret ignore so supposedly you don't see them, except when you peek, so you do sort of bring it on yourself.

Anyway, play on. I just will not participate in the shit slinging, except for the occasional sledge

 

[The Dark Knight]

In relation to this part of your post - fair comment. I do think LB, FKT & DK do overstep the mark in some of their comments re you but you apparently have them on double secret ignore so supposedly you don't see them, except when you peek, so you do sort of bring it on yourself.

she totally brings it on herself. That she has blocked me frees me from needing to show any civility towards her as she cannot see my posts. That she peeks is her own stupid fault. As she is an anonymous poster here, any comments are not directed at a real identifiable person, so comments like “go fuck yourself” are like shouting at clouds. Gloves are off.

That she blocks us and then makes comments about us show what sort of coward she is, which brings it back to her bringing it on herself.

 

[Ease the sheet.]

she totally brings it on herself. That she has blocked me frees me from needing to show any civility towards her as she cannot see my posts. That she peeks is her own stupid fault. As she is an anonymous poster here, any comments are not directed at a real identifiable person, so comments like “go fuck yourself” are like shouting at clouds. Gloves are off.

That she blocks us and then makes comments about us show what sort of coward she is, which brings it back to her bringing it on herself.

So she's responsible for what you post?

 

[Fah Kiew Tu]

In relation to this part of your post - fair comment. I do think LB, FKT & DK do overstep the mark in some of their comments re you but you apparently have them on double secret ignore so supposedly you don't see them, except when you peek, so you do sort of bring it on yourself.

Anyway, play on. I just will not participate in the shit slinging, except for the occasional sledge

I started off polite. I used to point out what she was saying was incorrect and supplied references by 3rd parties showing it.

Meli steadfastly refused to read them.

If she wants to remain willfully ignorant *and* participate in political discussions, I'll treat her with mockery and contempt.

Other than her stupidity and bias, I rarely comment on her other personal attributes or lack thereof. And as I'm on her double-secret ignore list, nothing I say can possibly affect her in any way regardless. Her whining about people she in theory can't read saying nasty things about her is priceless hypocrisy really.

It took, what, 3 exchanges for a civil person like @Recidivist to realise what a priceless, clueless fuckwit he was attempting to have a discussion with and give it away as a waste of time.

FKT

 

[Alhadder]

I started off polite. I used to point out what she was saying was incorrect and supplied references by 3rd parties showing it.

Meli steadfastly refused to read them.

If she wants to remain willfully ignorant *and* participate in political discussions, I'll treat her with mockery and contempt.

Other than her stupidity and bias, I rarely comment on her other personal attributes or lack thereof. And as I'm on her double-secret ignore list, nothing I say can possibly affect her in any way regardless. Her whining about people she in theory can't read saying nasty things about her is priceless hypocrisy really.

It took, what, 3 exchanges for a civil person like @Recidivist to realise what a priceless, clueless fuckwit he was attempting to have a discussion with and give it away as a waste of time.

FKT

Yeah I do recall when the comments were more polite and agree with your comment above re Recidivist

 

[LB 15]

I started off polite.

As indeed did I. I used to get along well with Meli and we both enjoyed the back and forth. But she became more and more irrational with her faux woke bullshit and then she got personal with me so fuck the silly cunt. The gloves are off now.
So for her and others benefit let me make my position on our indigenous brothers and sisters clear. The rate of substance abuse, violence, crime, incarceration and deaths in custody is a tragedy, but little different to other countries experience where an indigenous population has struggled to assimilate.
Europe's only truly indigenous people are the Welsh and the Euskaldunak people of the Basque region. Both groups have been invaded and conquered numerous times throughout history, but have assimilated, for two reasons
1/ They have had a couple of thousand years to do it and:
2/ They were not stone age people to start with.
And there lies the problem. You can not expect a race to somehow by-pass thousands of years of evolution in 250 years. Clearly the many that are of mixed race do far better than the full bloods.
There is no simple solution but giving them a token 'voice' in the constitution is not designed (and will not) do a fucking thing to improve their lives. It will only make some whiteys feel less guilty and all warm and fuzzy that they are activists by supporting it. The woke are not looking for solutions, only token gestures like that acknowledgment horse shit. They look for blame and division, not solutions. But this is Australia in 2023. A diverse nation of immigrants that IS a functioning and multicultural society. What the bleeding hearts want to do is elevate one small groups 'culture' above al others and in that they can go fuck themselves.

I and many others have no interest in 'Indigenous culture' whatsoever (it is an oxymoron anyway). I have no desire to have their 'Dream time' drivel driven down my throat any more than I would the teachings of the Catholic church or any other sky fairy nonsense. If you woke lefties want to pretend you find their primitive art work, fairy tales about a giant snake making rivers or inane chanting and dancing fascinating then knock yourself out. But leave the rest of us out of it. Aboriginal history should be taught in schools, but in a factual, not political manner. It won't take long. The walked over the land bridge 25k years ago (or 60 million years ago if you are a book stacker from Melbourne) and...spat on their hands in a few caves, wiped out a few native species and made a fish trap or two. Then the white man came and treated them badly until a few years back.
You will notice that the vast majority of the woke fools (like Meli) live in inner capital cities and there only 'knowledge' of aboriginal people comes from the ABC.
Fuck the voice and fuck you woke morons. If truth is racisim then call me a racist. I don't give a fuck.

 

[ShortForBob]

Communique for the Referendum Working Group - February 2023 | Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice

voice.niaa.gov.au

​

Communique for the Referendum Working Group - February 2023​

2nd Feb 2023
Communique
Today the Minister for Indigenous Australians, the Attorney‑General, the Special Envoy for Reconciliation and the Implementation of the Uluru Statement from the Heart, and the Assistant Minister for Indigenous Australians met with the Referendum Working Group at Parliament House in Canberra.
The Minister acknowledged the Working Group has a vital role to play in providing advice to Government.

Update from Government​

The Prime Minister addressed the meeting to restate his commitment to implement the Uluru Statement from the Heart, starting with a referendum, describing it as an opportunity to bring the nation together.
The Working Group received an update on the education and engagement work underway on the delivery of information on the Voice and referendum, and the upcoming legislation-related milestones towards a referendum.

Constitutional Expert Group​

The Working Group heard from members of the Constitutional Expert Group and discussed options for the referendum question, including a written summary of further advice (attached).

Peter Dutton & Julian Leeser​

The Opposition Leader and Shadow Attorney-General and Shadow Minister for Indigenous Australians attended the meeting, providing an opportunity for the Working Group to detail the progress made to date and discuss the approach to the referendum.

The Voice​

The Working Group noted the referendum is about the principle of enshrining a Voice in the Australian Constitution. The model of the Voice will be determined by the Parliament after the referendum, and after consultations.
In particular, the Working Group agreed broad and inclusive consultation with First Nations peoples and communities is critical to ensure the final Voice model reflects the views of First Nations communities.

Next steps​

The Working Group made significant progress on the referendum question and the constitutional amendment to be put to the Australian people.
Final recommendations will be given to the government within the next month, with the introduction of the Constitutional Alteration Bill on track to be introduced to Federal Parliament in March.
The Working Group is looking forward to further engaging with Australians about the referendum in the Week of Action starting on Saturday February 18 to Friday February 24.

ATTACHMENT – Summary of second tranche of advice from the Constitutional Expert Group​

The Constitutional Expert Group (Expert Group) considered additional questions referred from the Referendum Working Group relating to the draft constitutional amendment put forward by the Prime Minister at Garma on 30 July 2022 to enshrine an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice (Voice) in the Constitution.

1. An introductory sentence to the provision could be included without giving rise to any legal concerns​

The Expert Group considered the following example of possible introductory language to the draft provision from the Prime Minister’s speech at Garma on 30 July 2022:
In recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples as the First Peoples of Australia:

1. There shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice.
2. …

All members of the Expert Group agreed that introductory language of this kind would be appropriate in providing a succinct explanation for the enactment of the provision and clearly link the provision to constitutional recognition.

2. The names ‘Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice’ and ‘First Peoples Voice’ are preferable to the name ‘First Nations Voice’​

Members of the Expert Group acknowledged that ‘First Nations Voice’ was chosen for the name of the Voice in the Uluru Statement from the Heart.
However, while not unanimous, there was general consensus that the name ‘Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice’ or ‘First Peoples Voice’ would be preferable to ‘First Nations Voice’, including for legal clarity.

3. Parliament would have the power to establish, and create relationships between, the Voice and sub-national bodies including regional Voices​

The draft provision, along with existing heads of power, provide sufficient authority for the Parliament to make laws to implement a range of models for the Voice. These could include laws to establish sub-national Voices. Any connections with State and Territory Parliaments, Governments or Voices should be carefully formulated with the cooperation of the relevant State or Territory.

4. Other matters​

All members of the Expert Group agreed that the draft provision would not affect the sovereignty of any group or body.

 

[The Dark Knight]

Support for Indigenous Voice falls, voters call for more detail: Poll​

A clear majority of the electorate wants more detail about the Indigenous Voice to parliament after months of political argument about the principle at stake, with 63 per cent of voters saying they would like more information than is currently available.

Voters in marginal electorates show a stronger desire to know more about the reform – with 69 per cent wanting more information – in an exclusive survey that finds the same view has a majority whether voters back Labor, the Greens or the Coalition.

The findings heighten the debate about the amount of detail that can be offered before Australians decide on reform at a referendum later this year, with Prime Minister Anthony Albanese warning against “misinformation” and saying it would be up to parliament to decide crucial details after the vote.
Advocates for the change will gather in Adelaide on Thursday to launch the Yes campaign after revealing a new logo and message aimed at unifying their alliance when Opposition Leader Peter Dutton questions the proposal and some of his Liberal and Nationals supporters reject it outright.

Activist group GetUp on Wednesday called for more effort to win support for the Voice, saying in a statement: “What we are hearing is that too many First Nations people have little understanding of what the referendum is trying to deliver. There are incredible barriers to information.”
The new survey, conducted by Resolve Strategic, shows majority support for the Voice when people are asked about the wording Albanese aired last year as the possible referendum question, but it also shows support has fallen from last year.

In the first question about their support, respondents were asked about the exact wording of a possible change to the constitution issued by Albanese at the Garma festival in the Northern Territory last July.
Albanese said the amendment would say: “The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice may make representations to parliament and the executive government on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples.”

The next sentence in the amendment would be: “The parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws with respect to the composition, functions, powers and procedures of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice.”

The survey shows 46 per cent of voters favour this wording, while 26 per cent are against and 21 per cent are undecided. Support is down from 53 per cent on the same question asked in August and September.
In a second question, voters were asked to choose “yes” or “no” on the same wording without an option to be undecided, showing that 58 per cent are in favour and 42 per cent is against.


The results confirm the slip in support for the Voice when debate over the reform has intensified, particularly after Dutton called for more detail during weeks of debate in January. The support fell to 58 per cent in February compared with 60 per cent in December and January and 64 per cent last August and September.

The comparison is complicated by the way the Resolve Political Monitor has sometimes combined the data over two months. Month by month, support for the Voice on the Yes or No question has fallen from 63 per cent in August and 64 per cent in September to 62 per cent in December, 58 per cent in January and 58 per cent in February.
The latest Resolve Political Monitor surveyed 1604 eligible voters from Wednesday to Sunday, producing results with a margin of error of 2.5 percentage points.
The results show the responses over a single polling “track” in February, in contrast to earlier Resolve Political Monitor findings on the Voice that combined results for two months in order to produce a bigger sample size, reduce the margin of error and allow a breakdown of the results in each big state.


Asked about the debate over detail, 63 per cent of voters said they would like more information than was currently available. This result included 56 per cent of Labor voters, 73 per cent of Coalition voters and 58 per cent of Greens voters.
However, 25 per cent said they were happy to vote on the principle and the current information.
The question was: “There has recently been some debate about how much detail about the Voice should be released before the referendum vote. Some say that people should know what they are voting on, even if this could be changed in future years, so that they can make an accurate judgment. Others have said that there is too much detail and too many options to communicate, that this would be decided by parliament anyway, and instead we should just vote on the principle of having a Voice. As someone who may vote in the referendum, would you prefer more detail is released before you vote or are you happy to vote on the principle and let parliament decide on the detail afterwards?“
“It’s too early to tell if this marks a turning point or simply a hiatus, but it confirms the gradual drop in support we’ve tracked since last year,” said Resolve Strategic director Jim Reed.

“The onus is on the Yes and No campaigns to explain why they deserve people’s vote. That particularly applies to the Yes case because they are asking for the change.”

A key finding in the Resolve Political Monitor is that many voters expect the Voice to be about practical benefits. On this question, 42 per cent said it was about practical outcomes, 24 per cent said it was more about symbolic recognition and 34 per cent were undecided.
Albanese has sometimes answered questions about detail by referring to the report on the Voice issued by University of Canberra chancellor Tom Calma and University of Melbourne professor Marcia Langton, but the survey found 68 per cent had not heard of this document.
Only 32 per cent had heard of the report and this included 7 per cent who had read a summary and 1 per cent who said they had read the report in full.

“People are already on board for recognition, but the Yes campaign needs to convert a public prejudice to want to help fellow Australians into practical support for the Voice,” said Reed.

Given those results, Reed said Albanese had adopted an effective approach in recent weeks to build that support.
“Voters are asking for more information about the Voice but reject long-form documents,” said Reed.
“The prime minister is now the prominent figure in the debate, and he is using a simple mantra of recognition and consultation to attempt to frame the choice.”

Albanese said on Wednesday the functions and structure of the Voice would be determined by parliament after the referendum, if Australians approve.
“That’s the whole point here. It’s subservient to the parliament,” he said.
“And people can choose to try to spread misinformation or pretend that they don’t know about issues which are so clear even though they all know that it won’t have a right of veto, it won’t be a funding body, it won’t run programs.
“It’s not going to sit around the cabinet table. It is just a request for consultation.”

Support for Indigenous Voice falls, voters call for more detail: Poll

Whether backing Labor, the Greens or the Coalition, most survey respondents wanted to know more about the proposed Voice to parliament.

www.theage.com.au

 

[MikeHunt]

 

[LB 15]

This must be fake! Actors wearing black face! This is completely false because as we know the indigenous Australians are one nation and are totally united on every issue.
Fuck me this lot are even more crazy than the Bike Moll! We should adopt Aboriginal law now!
I am all for it. Can you point the bone over the internet? Or do I have to fly to Melbourne with it?

 

[The Dark Knight]

This must be fake! Actors wearing black face!

like Stan on tv last night

 

[LB 15]

like Stan on tv last night

View attachment 577275

Orange is the new black?