In less than 24 hours of declaring it was a unanimous decision to oppose an "Aboriginal Voice To Parliament" the cow cocky party has broken ranks. Federal MP Andrew Gee says he will support the ‘yes’ campaign for an Aboriginal voice to parliament, while the WA branch also states it will back Indigenous recognition in the Constitution. For some reactionaries within the National Party, any kind of recognition of Aboriginal people is a bridge too far, after all it was only a century or so ago that their ancestors in the Country Party were out shooting Aboriginals, they certainly weren't listening to them then, so nothing has changed for this lot.

Lets now see where the man of very few words Peter Dutton goes on the "Voice", could see the Liberals split worse than the Nationals

In theory the Voice would be a good thing however, past antics have proven beyond doubt that in practise it would be an unaffordable economic & social mess plagued by integrity-devoid opportunists on both sides.
It would set Indigenous/non indigenous society back a hundred years with a civil war as the only possible outcome ! Why ? Well, I just gauge it by looking at the people supporting it !

Dear Paul,

It will be up to the Australian voters to decide where
they stand on the Voice to Parliament. So far the indications
are good and that the Bill will pass because most Australians
do feel that what is being asked is not all that complicated.
It won't be a "Third Chamber," as some misinformed people
claim. It will simply be an advisory body on laws that affect
them. Which is not asking for very much.

The Coalition needs to learn a lesson from the recent
federal and state elections - and listen to the Australian
voters. To ignore the messages being sent is to do so at
their own political peril.

Most Australians will pass the Voice to Parliament.
That's what matters. As it did with same-sex marriage.
With the IR reforms, and with the election of a Labor
PM and a Labor state Premier in Victoria. Politics in
Australia has changed. We're not in the 1950s anymore!

OMG, the Nations aren't unanimous in their position. How can anyone support a party where all the members don't sycophantically agree with whatever the party leadership says. Any party where the members think for themselves surely can't be trusted. </sarc>

BTW, it turns out that the main National spokesperson for the 'No' case in the Voice debate is aboriginal. Shhhhhh, don't tell anyone and they might not notice.

I have little interest in this topic until the government clearly states the changes it wants.
I want to do whats best for Indigenous Australians, but more importantly I also have to consider whats best for the whole country.
I won't be entertaining the idea of supporting anything until the government can clearly state it's change of policies.

Dear government, please to not waste money or paper printing bs meant to manipulate my emotions.
Just give me the facts and the fine print, and I will make an informed decision based on that info.

If I'm unable to make an informed decision, then I'm also unable to give my support to your changes.
- I'm sure plenty of other stupid Aussies will be fooled into supporting these changes without ever being given the facts.
- This, in my opinion will be a real test of how stupid the people in this country really are;
If they're willing to sign on the dotted line without first being given an opportunity, or even wanting to read the fine print before making a decision;
- and are too dumb to even acknowledge their imprudent foolishness.

I guess we'll see soon enough.
If I see a large majority of people making a decision without being privvy to the facts, I'm going to conclude that the whole country is made up of people who are as dumb as a box of rocks, and that there is little hope for them or this country.

There is always a renegade or idiot in a political party; he will be dealt with I would think.

In the meantime, good on the Nationals. I have congratulated Mr. Littleproud, and I hope that the Liberals will follow the example.

There is no evidence (polls are not evidence) that voters will support this exhibition of Labor racism; and referenda not supported by both sides will not succeed.

The Coalition in full, not just the junior party, must demonstrate that it is not a Labor clone: we are starting to look like One Party Communist China since the election of a Labor regime. If Dutton doesn't start earning his money and some respect soon, the Liberal Party might as well fold its tent, and disappear into the desert.

A new strain of communism is infecting the West, despite the fact that the original strain resulted in the deaths of tens of millions of human beings, and the impoverishment and enslavement of over a billion more.

The English-speaking world used to be immune to it; not any more.

This reversal apartheid of the Labor hard-Left regime is the most disgusting , anti-democratic and racist assault on Australians ever. The deliberate separation of different sections of the population is the oldest authoritarian lurk in the book.

Why do the Nationals oppose the Indigenous Voice
and do their arguments really stand up to scrutiny?

The following link may help answer that question:

http://theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/nov/09/why-do-the-nationals-oppose-the-indigenous-voice-and-do-their-arguments-stand-up-to-scrutiny

My apologies for the typo. I put in the wrong date.
Here's the link again:

http://theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/nov/29/why-do-the-nationals-oppose-the-indigenous-voice-and-do-their-arguments-stand-up-to-scrutiny

The Liberal section of the Coalition has been listening to the wrong Australian voters - the ones who will never vote for them. They have lost multiple thousands of voters who used to vote for them because they were an alternative to Socialism. They are no longer that alternative.

I watched a Labor stooge last night saying that, to get back in the game, Dutton would have to accept Labor's 43% emission reduction target. What a load of bullshite! How would that get the Coalition elected when Labor is already doing it!

The Liberals in Victoria are still in opposition because they are Labor-lite.

Australian's need a choice. They haven't had one since Malcolm Turnbull. Labor had policies for the last election. The Coalition just said we are not Labor. Pigs arse! Labor has beliefs - no matter how bad we on the right think those beliefs are; Liberals have nothing - or at least nothing that they have the courage to articulate or fight for. They have blown their economic credentials. They won't fight the culture wars; they won't fight for free speech; under Dutton, they won't say boo to the government.

The Coalition will never get back into government if they stay the way they are, just weakly mirroring Labor, not even a centimetre to the right of them these days.

As I said to a friend the other day, 'I'm glad that I'm 80 and not 18'. This country is rooted, and it will only get worse.

If our indigenous folk want and receive a voice in Parliament so do Korean and Vietnam Veterans and let's not forget our veterans who served bravely in Afghanistan and other lesser known conflicts. All deserve a single voice in Parliament. After all that put their life on the line surely they deserve to be singularly heard in our Parliament.

Let's not forget our warriors in blue, the police, surely they deserve a seperate voice in Parliament, as do our Nurses, & Paramedic. In fact there are probably many sections of society deserving of having a separate voice in our Parliament.

But actually don't we already have the apparatus in place now, that ensures all sections of the Australian community can be heard through the medium of our elected representatives? Doesn't always function as it was intended, but in the end it does seem to work?

I'm not sure how you manage to stuff up links all the time Foxy, but at least you try to add them when discussing a topic.

Here's your link:
http://theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/nov/09/why-do-the-nationals-oppose-the-indigenous-voice-and-do-their-arguments-stand-up-to-scrutiny

Here's the correct link, I wonder what you did to stuff it up.
http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/nov/29/why-do-the-nationals-oppose-the-indigenous-voice-and-do-their-arguments-stand-up-to-scrutiny

I can see you did not add the www from the correct link that I copied, (shouldn't matter) but you got the date number in the url wrong.
'09' should've been '29'.
It looks like you type out your links by hand instead of just copying them and taking out the 's'?
- Seems like a extremely difficult way of going about adding links.

Follow this foolproof system:

1/ Just left-click on any url or address to firstly highlight it,
2/ Then right-click on the url again to bring up a small menu of options, and then choose 'Copy' from that menu, to copy it to your computers clipboard.
3/ Then once back on the OLO page and making a comment right-click and choose 'Paste' from that menu; and then
4/ - go back and delete the 's' from 'https'.
5/ Then click 'Preview' in OLO before posting your comment; and then
6/ click the link and check it works in your 'previewed' comment before you post.

Then click 'Post comment'

It's foolproof, you can't possibly mess it up if you follow this system.

As to renegades and idiots in parties, one such is Liberal MP for Bass, Bridget Archer, now supporting the censuring of her ex-leader.

Archer has been white-anting her own party ever since she went on the public tit. The Liberals are too wet to pull her into line.

This nutter should be disendorsed, and forced out on her own at the next election.

Preselection processes are clearly are another weakness of the Liberal Party.

Had this person been Labor, she would have been out on her ear by now. That's one thing I do admire about the ALP. If you don't want to abide by party rules and beliefs, stand as an independent, or get a proper job.

Hi AC,

Thank you for your concern and help.

The fact is my eye-sight is getting worse. I'm supposed
to have another eye op next year - so hopefully things
will improve. For now - I'm doing the best I can. Bear
with me for now.

Hey Foxy,
Also, as an afterthought it may also help when you click your link in 'preview' to check it before posting, to right-click the link in the preview window and choose 'Open in a new tab'.
- Opening in a new tab will ensure you won't lose the comment you've written but have not yet posted.
(Even though you don't actually lose it and can still click the 'back' button, which usually brings OLO back with your written comment even if you have gone to a new webpage)

Hi AC,

Wow!

Thanks.

The rogue lefty Liberals should be made aware that it is not them whom voters vote for - it's their party. Liberal, Labor, Greens sink or swim on their policies, not on the individuals representing them.

The Labor or Green voter can pretty much expect what the parties say they will do, they do. Liberal voters cannot.

The Labor party will not tolerate dissent. The stupid bloody Liberal party does. Howard's 'broad church' is a thing of this past. The Liberal Party is becoming irrelevant. Voters no long have a clear choice between conservatism and socialism, which is surely a right in a democratic country.

Voters certainly do have choices and they are making them
loud and clear. Therein lies the problem for
some, who espouse being for "freedoms" and then
are shocked to discover when these freedoms not
only do exist but are being voiced.

Hi Foxy,

AC has given the standard method for "copy and paste" hyperlinks to OLO. Just remember to delete the "S" from https so it reads http. I think the "S" means secured which prevents the hyperlink from operating as an unsecured hyperlink which it does without the "S". The danger is if the hyperlink were to contain something malicious such as a virus then clicking on it without the security would instantly activate the nasty contained there in. AC correct me if I'm wrong.

The 's' does indeed denote a secure site in that the data is encrypted. That's not to say that http sites aren't secure, just not as secure.

When we take the 's' out that doesn't mean the URL now points to an unsecure site.

The issue is the age of the OLO programme. When we enter a URL the system needs some way to recognise that it is a URL. It does this by looking for instances of 'http://' and when it sees that it knows its found a URL. But the programme preceded the https age and so doesn't know that "https://" is a URL.

Taking the 's' out just help the OLO programme recognise the URL but doesn't compromise the security of the link.

Thanks mhaze, always learning. Knew the "S" had some significance. This program is very old, one time, years back, Graham was thinking of a newer program, but as far as I know the idea got shelved due to cost.

Hi Paul1405,
I'm just going to cut and paste here.
"Hypertext transfer protocol secure (HTTPS) is the secure version of HTTP, which is the primary protocol used to send data between a web browser and a website. HTTPS is encrypted in order to increase security of data transfer. This is particularly important when users transmit sensitive data, such as by logging into a bank account, email service, or health insurance provider."
http://www.cloudflare.com/learning/ssl/what-is-https/

I think there's a specific reason why OLO hasn't upgraded to a better looking forum or fixed the https issue.
The OLO website is built on older software, and migrating over to newer updated software would take a significant amount of time and coding skills.
Also all the existing site content in databases also would need to be migrated.
I'm not sure if there's a simple coding fix to make the site recognise the https links.
I have a friend who may know how to fix it, I'll message him and ask.

I'm going to deliberately add a secure link below and then show him this message so he can see what's wrong.
https://www.cloudflare.com/learning/ssl/what-is-https/

Thanks AC,

Yes this site could be turned from a Model T into a Farrari, the new 'Facebook' of politics and social debate, but the problem is cost, and as far as I known 'Google' don't pay a lot to advertise here. What has intrigued me over the years is the numbers who join, must be thousands by now, but then choose never to contribute. In words of my granddaughter now 17 going on 25 (wahine); "Get real Pop!"

"Get real Pop!"
Paul1405,
Your grand daughter is right, listen to her. You never know you might even find yourself contributing constructive posts !

When the whingers run out of things to whinge about, they invent something to whinge about. Now it's the age of the OLO format.

o sung wu

Good to see your post standing out amongst the Left ratbaggery and woke garbage, most of which is obviously copied from some cranks on Google. They don't seem to be very adept with Google, either

The Voice is pure identity politics: nothing to do with helping anyone.

The separatist Left in their hysterical attack on the Nationals are carefully ignoring the fact that the Nationals want to actually help those needing help without Albanese grandstanding and racist apartheid. They want to empower local Indigenous communities at the local level instead of creating another layer of bureaucracy in Canberra.

The 'junior' partner of the clapped out Coalition should be standing candidates in all federal seats at the next election and putting the pathetic Liberals out of their misery.t

ttbn, you are a narky old B, did you acquire your nasty disposition when you turned 100, or have you been that way all your life? I suspect all your life. I never criticise what I get for free, and this forum is free.

BTW Indy, it was the proliferation of Old Farts on the Forum that turns my granddaughter off contributing, the number of negative posters, who never have a positive word to say on anything or anyone. Why get down in that same gutter? It must be terrible to have turned so decrepit in life, with the candle soon to be extinguished, yes life is finite for us all, and see no good in the future for tomorrows generation, only doom and gloom. Its pathetic.

WTF?
Indyvidual states: " past antics have proven beyond doubt that in practise it would be an unaffordable economic & social mess plagued by integrity-devoid opportunists on both sides."

Yet when Indigenous Australians say they want a voice in matters that affect them because the past antics have failed them somehow the paternalistic know-betters see this as a hundred year setback.

I used to think this Helleresque level of absurdity was confined to fiction but it appears here on OLO daily.

WTF? - Not Again,
Unfortunately, there's no other or more polite way to say this but, you are misguided ! When good will heaped upon good will is perpetually condemned as insufficient then is there really another way of expecting things to work out for the better ? I have lived the scenario you think the scenario is. let me tell you in all sincerity, in reality it isn't to how you've been led to believe.
As I stated earlier, it's because of integrity-devoid opportunists on ALL sides !
We have recently had a situation where the indigenous board tried to oust the CEO because the board's demands for more funding to be used on new vehicles was denied. That's a miniature Voice in action !

Which 'indigenous Australians' said they wanted a voice? A lot of them are against it. A lot of them have never heard of it. A lot of them don't understand it.

A lot of them?

The evidence says the opposite:

http://reconciliation.org.au/reconciliation/support-a-voice-to-parliament/

Voice for Indigenous people?
What about the whole planet?

I question whether the future Klaus Schwab wants is the future we all want.
And who voted him in anyway...

WTF?

Indyvidual: "the indigenous board tried to oust the CEO".
Which Indigenous board is "the" Indigenous board that you are referencing?

ttbn would have us believe that " A lot of them are against it. A lot of them have never heard of it."

This is just a sad straw-grasping attempt to appear authoritative. A dismal failure - in past discussions many have provided the sources that discredit this notion. I really do not know who you could possibly expect to believe this.

Indigenous people need a voice. It is clear that the institutions and structural organisation within these organisations set up to advance Indigenous Australians have failed. Indigenous Australians did not set up these institutions Governments did.

It is quite clear that Indigenous Australians have had enough and want their own voice.

Taken from the link I gave:

"A Voice to Parliament will give Indigenous communities
a route to help inform policy and legal decisions that
impact their lives. Giving people a say will lead to
more effective results."

"Embedding a Voice in the Constitution would finally
recognize the special place of Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander people in Australia's history, but even more
importantly it would also mean that it can't be shut down
by successive governments."

We need a Referendum. " This is a bit like an election, but
instead of voting for people to be Members of Parliament -
Australians will be asked a simple question - like the one
proposed by the PM -"

"Do you support an alteration to the Constitution that
establishes an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
Voice?"

With a YES or a NO.

There has been so much work that has already been done.
"The Voice was proposed in the Uluru Statement from the Heart.
It was presented to the First Nations National Constitutional
Convention, held over four days near Uluru in Central
Australia."

"The 259 member Convention was held after the 16 Member
Referendum Council had travelled around the country and met
with over 1,200 people."

"In the 5 years since the release of the Uluru Statement from
the Heart, a Joint Select Committee has considered the proposal.
An Indigenous Voice Co-Design process outlined in full detail
all the options of how a Voice could work."

"The Australian Reconciliation Barometer in their 2 yearly
survey on attitudes to Reconciliation showed 95% of Australians
believe it is important for Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander people to have a say in matters that affect them."

"The surveys showed that 81% of Australians also believe it is
important to protect an Indigenous body within the Constitution
so any government can't remove it."

"Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people should not be a
political football tossed between successive governments."

Hi Paul,

Some more good news:

Our PM tells us that he has personally advocated for
Julian Assange's release to the US government and has
urged it to drop its legal pursuit of the WikiLeaks
co-founder.

You with the foul-mouthed pseudonym,

It's not what I would have anyone believe - it's fact. You obviously don't read or listen to anything that you don't want to know; so there is no way that I would "possibly expect to believe this".

Perhaps you could reveal the "past discussions many have provided the sources that discredit this notion".

Do you seriously think "indigenous Australians" are going to 'set up' this racist nonsense, you poor fool? The architect of the Voice is the race-obsessed, divisive Anthony Albanese.

You are all ideology and no brains, sport.

You are just like the knucklehead who thinks Reconciliation Australia is an unbiased organisation.

The Nationals have just had nearly 10 years in office along with their Liberal mates, and achieved nothing worthwhile in aboriginal affairs. Us Europeans have had 230 years of decision making and despite at times good intentions, we have made nothing more than very slow progress, but realistically overall we have achieved little in so many aspects of indigenous peoples lives, with our "we know best" attitude. Look at the years of 'Closing the Gap Reports', they make for pathetic and sorrowful reading. Aboriginal people are only asking for a constructive voice to parliament within their own affairs, surely nothing wrong with that. Although some in the Nationals, and others, seem to have a real problem with that.

WTF NOT AGAIN...

Why only indigenous folk who deserve to have a voice? What about those who defended this great Nation in 1914 -18 and again in 1939 - 45, Korea, Vietnam and the many smaller wars, where Australia has committed troops. Surely they have a moral right to have a voice in Parliament.

I appreciate indigenous Australians have their own unique set of problems, but surely now there are sufficient number of very erudite people, enunciating those problems for them already in Parliament? As there appear to be for our war veterans. And in the criminal law, I can tell you authoritatively, they enjoy more protections and rights if they're suspects or in custody than any other citizen in this country does.

Actually Sir there'll come a point where indigenous Australian will be seen as receiving far too many rights, privileges, and protections, above and beyond the rest of the citizenry, there will surely be a backlash. Equity is what's needed to retain harmony and balance.

As I retired police detective I've on occasions needed to interact with our indigenous blacks. And in every case they MUST be handled with 'kid gloves' (metaphorically speaking). Whenever a crime is committed and an indigenous person is involved, the appointed case officer is usually of a higher rank. Moreover he's generally well across the necessary nuances associated with investigating such indigenous involvement. Thus he must have a thorough understanding of the 'Judges Rules' as well as the 'Anunga Rules'.

'The Judges Rules' are a series of protections for all those in custody. Including our indigenous folk. And a further set of protective rules exist only for the benefit of our indigenous people. They're known as the 'Anunga Rules' (sic). Accordingly our indigenous people enjoy both levels of protections in the criminal law. Be assured they have a voice, and a loud one at that. WTF NOT AGAIN.

If opposition to the Voice Referendum in this thread is anything to go by it won't pass.

WTF?
ttbn states: "Perhaps you could reveal the "past discussions many have provided the sources that discredit this notion".

Sure thing - here is a link to the 55 page OLO discussion back in July that you were part of where myself and many others gave you multiply sources that make your statement look like nonsense.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=9888&page=0#336816

It seems to me you are just angrily shouting into the wind.

Oh by the way the F is for Fudge or was your mind thinking of something else

WTF?

o sung wu states: "And in every case they MUST be handled with 'kid gloves" when talking about police interaction with Indigenous Australians.

Was this always the case or is it in response to the findings of a Royal Commission?

Hey Foxy,
Yeah I saw that Albanese / Assange news too.
- Glad that he's trying to something, instead of ignoring it.
I guess we'll see what comes of it... also this:

NY Times, four other news outlets urge U.S. to drop espionage charges against Assange
http://justthenews.com/accountability/media/major-media-outlets-urge-us-drop-charges-against-assange-publishing-not-crime

Hey ttbn,
"The architect of the Voice is the race-obsessed, divisive Anthony Albanese."

Yeah.. and who put the idea in his head?
I think it's a bit naive to think this is all Albo.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2009-04-03/aust-adopts-un-indigenous-declaration/1640444

"Today Australia joins the international community to affirm the aspirations of all Indigenous peoples"
- Indigenous Affairs Minister, Jenny Macklin (Labor) 2009

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_Voice_to_Parliament

"After Scott Morrison became prime minister of Australia in August 2018, his government proposed the Indigenous voice to government in October 2019, which would introduce a body via legislation, without changing the Constitution. The process by which the channel would be established was known as the Indigenous voice co-design process. The Senior Advisory Group was set up under Minister for Indigenous Australians, Ken Wyatt.
With a change of government on 23 May 2022, new prime minister Anthony Albanese promised in his victory speech that a referendum to decide the Indigenous Voice to Parliament enshrined in the Constitution would be held within his term of office."

These might be trival things compared to what Klaus Schwab wants for all our futures.

I'm a little less neutral on China today, found this video on YouTube yesterday, but the channel has already been removed, but I found it again on Rumble.

Klaus Schwab and George Soros Declare China Must Lead New World Order
http://rumble.com/v1xghbw-klaus-schwab-and-george-soros-declare-china-must-lead-new-world-order.html

- Been years since I dipped my toe into conspiracy type stuff, if we want to know where the worlds headed we need to know what these peoples plans are.

WTF NOT AGAIN...

I did 32 years in the job, and the 'kid glove' has always been in effect in that time, to answer your question.

WTF?

o sung wu - with 32 years in the job I am sure you saw many changes to policing and Indigenous Australians.

Perhaps you served at times before and after the Royal Commission into Deaths in Custody.

In any case, as this discussion seems to have included Indigenous concerns, I'm wondering what, if any, improvements to the lot of Indigenous Australians you attribute to the Royal Commission findings.

WTF

Fudge is it? Fudge by name, fudging by nature.

I am not going to wade through all that waffle. If you can't give me specific evidence to back your claim that "Indigenous Australians say they want a voice in matters that affect them", I will continue to believe that you are a bare faced liar. Committees and aboriginal (or part thereof) elites do not represent the many and varied Australians of Aboriginal background; nor do 'references' pulled off Google.

Like all of your kind, you have the appalling belief that some people all think and feel the same. There is no way in the wide world that you are able to back up your blanket, racist statement that "Indigenous Australians say they want a voice in matters that affect them"; particularly when many high profile people, including Jacinta Price and Anthony Dillon regard the whole thing as an insult.

And, finally, nothing is good that is being pushed by a PM who is also virtue-signalling over Assange, a person wanted by our ally, the USA, for questioning and possible trial for alleged actions against the security of our ally. I thank the Left tragic and great admirer of Albanese who made that bit of news available.

WTF?

ttbn states: I am not going to wade through all that waffle.

I think that's the point. Unless you are prepared to wade through the waffle you will never be able to actually understand what the issues are.

You clearly do not believe those who have read through it. So I cannot take much of what you say seriously.

Still, my suggestion is take the time and have a good read. It may be heavy going at times and there might be a lot to get through but that is the point.

This is not a simple matter and much thought and discussion has taken place already to get us to this point.

Speaking of that man-of-the-people, Anthony Albanese, I've just read that wears $649 boots and has a $3,890 Burberry car coat. There's something for the black fellas to 'give voice' to.

WTF

I suggest that you start reading books to catch up. The ABC, MSM and Google don't cut the mustard when it comes to the truth. I'm afraid that you are too much the low information type for me to bother with any longer.

WTF?

ttbn states: The ABC, MSM and Google don't cut the mustard when it comes to the truth.

If you do not trust those organisations then go to the source material as has been suggested to you many times.

The ABC and mainstream media may provide content and commentary but if you think it is tainted then - go to the source material and read it yourself.

There are a plethora of search engines that you can you to take you to the source material if you do not trust google.

Once again - go to the source material and read it yourself.

Who does cut the mustard?

Pauline Hanson?

Or the delegates to the First Nations National Constitutional
Convention, who over 4 days near Uluru with their 250 member
Convention after 16 member Referendum Council had travelled
around the country and met with over 1,200 people. Plus in the
five years since the release of the Uluru Statement a Joint
Select Committee has considered the proposal, and an Indigenous
Voice Co-design Process has outlined in full detail all the
options of how a Voice will work.

And there's more, much more for anybody interested in the truth.
There's plenty of material in reports available - and have been
presented to Parliament to read.

As for what our PM wears or drives, et cetera?

What's that got to do with anything? Unlike some people he's
earned what he has.

I hate to say it Foxy, but the pink tie thing makes him look like more of a grovelling little white knight feminist with his female ministers standing behind him (holding the whip) than a serious leader.

WTF...

You're are right, there was quite a shake-up in the job just after the findings of the Royal Commission published it's findings. Not so much to police procedural protocols or our SOPs, rather more to do with administrative and property accountability.

Will the delegates to the Voice be elected?

If so how?

How often?

Can they be removed for any reason?

If so how and by whom?

Will they be paid? By whom? Who will decide the payment? Will there be higher payments for some? Who will appoint/elect those people?

Will dissenting voice in the Voice be given a Voice?

The longer the government and the aboriginal faction refuse to answer these type of questions with specifics as opposed to feel-good waffle, the more likely it is that they know the answers won't be acceptable.

Which Indigenous board is "the" Indigenous board that you are referencing?
WTF-not again,
Now, revealing that would make this Board say "Yes, t'was us' ?

"And there's more, much more for anybody interested in the truth.
There's plenty of material in reports available - and have been
presented to Parliament to read."

Unfortunately there are many rednecks within parliament and in the broader community who oppose any Constitutional change which would benefit Aboriginal people. The rushed decision by the Federal Nationals to oppose a voice in the first instance without any real consideration or consultation as to its value as a mechanism for change does question their motivation.

The pile on in opposing a voice from the Usual Suspects on the Forum does indicate this question will bring out the "best" in Australia's bigoted racists!

Mav's you write; "If opposition to the Voice Referendum in this thread is anything to go by it won't pass." Fortunately this Forum is not representative of the Australian community. 90% of the population are not bigoted octogenarian old men who keep their teeth in a glass by their bedside at night. If it was so you would probably be correct.

WTF, without getting into a slanging match with the Forum's old ex-copper, by attacking one of his sacred cows, I think his sanitised representation of coppers in kid gloves always dealing with Aboriginal people is not the reality. What an uppity black fella, often drunk, could expect from the coppers was not printed in the police manual.

"Police and custodial officers have been accused of "brutally assaulting" a Tasmanian Aboriginal man in custody, allegedly leaving him "naked, in a pool of his own blood, for [more than] 12 hours". News report ABC Oct 2022.

The evidence says the opposite:
Foxy,
Calling some ad 'evidence' is an indicator of missing the point completely !

Dear Paul,

Did you happen to watch Q and A last night?
It was the final one for the year and it was
brilliant! A great rational panel.

One of the most moving moments came at the end of
the show - which closed with a poem from Steven
Oliver. It gave e me goosebumps. I'm didn't get the
name of it - I'd love to get a copy of it - so
I'll try to trace it. If you know what it is - I'd
appreciate knowing the name.

Anyway - it was one of those rare TV moments.

Indy

It is a waste of time arguing with the brainwashed left. They are incapable of rational thought; they just parrot the ravings of their Marxist masters, in Canberra and in the media. We need to keep putting out our message - not wasting time on arguing with dimwits who are too far down the road to serfdom to be of any use to democracy.

Fifty years today since the Fabian Whitlam was elected, and here we go again; but this time, we don’t have an opposition capable of saving us from a maniac even further to the Left than Whitlam.

In the news this morning, the ACT Prosecutor is expected to drop the charge in the Lehrmann/Higgins trial.

ACT Director of Public Prosecutions Shane Drumgold announced this morning that the sexual assault charge against Mr Lehrmann will be dropped, because of an "unacceptable risk to the life of the complainant (Brittany Higgins)". The health of Ms Higgins should be of paramount concern,rather than the prosecution of a very difficult case of rape for the second time, good decision.

BTW ttbn, you blow hard and long about those not keeping to the discussion topic, you do it more often than not. Here is a prime example above of you doing just that, I don't mine, but you are a hypocrite!

Decision confirmed. The reason is a bit iffy. But given the anti-male-believe-all-women-baloney, it was probably thought politic not to suggest that the prosecution didn't have a hope of succeeding. Enough money has been wasted already, and the speechifying outside the court was the dizzy limit.

Hey Paul1405 and ttbn,
I thought it was a bit strange too, that they dropped the charges because of the alleged victims mental health.
It seems odd to me, not sure I've heard of a situation like it.

If you believe what the female security guard said about finding Brittany blind-rotten drunk and naked in her bosses office, after they had gone to parliament house late at night, AND after they'd been seen kissing etc earlier in the night at the club,

Security guard describes finding alleged rape victim Brittany Higgins in Parliament House
http://youtu.be/h-H0f5o0wpI

Then on face value I think it's likely they did hook up, and by the standards of today she may have been too drunk to give consent;
- But if they were going somewhere to be alone and in private (when Brittany already had a partner) then why go to Parliament house.
[Was there another reason they went there?]

And why should any of us look at it as 2 people who got drunk on a night out, one thing led to another, and one of them regretted it.
Beyond that no-one can know what really happened.

ARMCHAIR CRITIC...

I reckon you're on the money there my friend. Besides, what's the point of going to Parliament House while inebriated to enjoy some dalliance, given the place has any number of security staff and other people present, 24/7?

I'm guessing that even in a fem-ocracy like Canberra its impossible to prove a rape when you can't even prove sexual contact.

Could the accused have got a fair trial after the complainant received the 'believe women treatment, and to hell with all that innocent until proven guilty stuff'?

.Higgins immediately became a darling of the Press Club.
.She was made a senior visiting fellow of the ANU's women's global leadership institute.
.She was gushed over by Julia Gillard.
.Journalists got awards for taking her side before a trial date was even set.
.Scott Morrison made one of his apologies to her in Parliament without knowing whether or not she was an actual victim

Something is simply not right here.

How convenient that former Liberal staffer Bruce Lehrmann's
rape trial has conveniently been abandoned and all
charges have been dropped.

He can walk away from all this, while Ms Higgins is in
hospital?

A 4th woman has made allegations about Lehrmann who by the way
has a reputation of behaviour in parliament that's been described
as "rather sleazy." All this follows a Four Corners report
in November about the culture in Parliament House - including
allegations against 2 other government ministers.

What a coincidence?

Few people these days believe in coincidences - especially
when it concerns politics and the culture in Parliament House.

Hi Foxy,

No one had a greater sleazer reputation around the Friday night fleshpots of Canberra than the former Attorney General of Sleaze 'Cry Baby' Porter. I don't know where Lehrmann fits in the pecking order of Liberal Party sleaze, but I'm sure he was considered a valuable asset going places, possibly like 'Cry Baby' he may have harboured ambitions for the very top job, Prime Minister 'Sleaze' Lehrmann, it does have a ring to it.

I did listen to ACT Director of Public Prosecutions Shane Drumgold's explanation for dropping the charge, and it did seem plausible. The problem with rape, unlike any other criminal charges, the victim is often made out to look the guilty party. As you can see from the comments of the 'Usual Suspects' here, they basically say Higgins was asking for it, and besides there is no proof. I know of two women, one a family member, and one a close friend, who without a shadow of a doubt were raped. Our friend has conveyed to both my wife and I in graphic detail how she was raped many times as an adolescent of 15 or 16 by a married uncle with children of his own in his family home, during 'stay overs', even in his car and on one occasion in a public toilet block, these rapes were never reported and of course never prosecuted. Over the years our friend has suffered mentally, severe anxiety just one result of her long ago ordeals. She has been unable to establish lasting decent relationships with men, went through a marriage break up, several other relationship failures. I've seen a photo of her when she was about 18, obviously her crime was being just to bloody pretty as a young girl.

Hi Paul,

As a student I got a casual job as a telephonist for a very
well known cab company in Sydney. My boss at the time made
a move on me early one morning - and I fought him off. Lucky
for me - a young taxi driver came to my rescue. He ended up
driving me home and told me not to ever come back - because
my boss was dangerous. I took the young bloke's advice.

I was very lucky. But I remember that incident to this day.
My boss was a married man - and strong as an ox. As I said -
I was lucky that the young bloke walked in when the sleaze
was making his move on me.

How many females aren't so lucky?

"He can walk away from all this, "

Actually, no. He will spend the rest of his life with this unresolved, unproven, unprovable accusation hanging over his head. His career destroyed.

There are never winners in this type of thing.

The culture in Parliament House has to change!

.The Higgins matter was tried in the media before it was brought to police.

. The trial was taken over by the media sideshow.

. Both parties now remain, forever, complainant and accused.

. The behaviour of the media and political class will remain selfish and self-indulgent up to and including the next incident .

. The blabber-mouths have gone quiet now that they have effectively stopped the trial and inflicted their vicious damage.

. There has been a total disregard and lack of respect for the law, which is becoming more frequent in Australia.

On the last point, there is a bit of good news concerning lawbreakers. A female magistrate has sentenced a female ratbag climate activist to 15 months imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 8 months for holding up traffic on the Sydney Harbour Bridge.

"A bit of good news concerning lawbreakers?"

Former Sydney school teacher and rugby league star,
Chris Dawson has been sentenced to 24 years in
prison by a male judge for the historical murder
of his wife Lynette ending a decades long campaign for
justice.

Dawson was told by the judge he would "probably die in jail."

I know nothing about the Higgins matter other than what I've read in the various newspapers. But I do know a little of police procedure, and all I can add - I'd not wish to be the case officer on a sexual assault charge after the newspaper's have thoroughly dissected the myths and facts associated with this particular allegation.

The presumption of innocence seems lost in the media's enunciation of the matter, altogether presently. Now the law has been thoroughly flouted, with have a complainant denied justice, as we have a defendant similarity denied the right to clear himself. What's going on here? '...Fiat justifiable (rust caelum) - Meaning '...let justice be done, though the heavens fall...'.

Let justice be done?

There's a reason justice wears a blind-fold.

It's usually about the law - not justice.

The Pell case is an excellent example.

Let justice be done.

"Legal Affairs Editor Chris Merritt was on Sky News yesterday morning, expressing outrage at the way the case has been handled, with Bruce Lehrmann now being denied a right to a fair trial and any chance of an acquittal which would clear his name. He said that the DPP’s decision is a “catastrophe” for the justice system since this means the case will remain unresolved forever. “His name has been tainted… and that [taint] will never be removed. He’s been denied a right to a fair trial,” Merritt said."

Repeat "the DPP’s decision is a “catastrophe” for the justice system"

This wasn't justice. It was trial by media with an innocent man (remember innocent until proven guilty?).... with an innocent man given a life sentence. He lost his career and following the allegation again became unemployed and unemployable.

When a man is accused of sexual misconduct, justice is the last thing he can hope for.

"The Pell case is an excellent example."

Pell, an innocent man, spent 404 days in prison. Again he lost his job and his career There was no justice.

Maybe a million bucks will make Brittany Higgins happy?

Brittany Higgins’ million-dollar compensation claim after collapse of rape trial
http://tinyurl.com/y8krm62r

"Lawyers acting for Brittany Higgins are set to hold talks with the federal government over a million-dollar compensation claim in the wake of the dramatic collapse of the rape trial on mental health grounds.
And the man originally charged over her alleged rape, Liberal staffer Bruce Lehrmann, is also considering civil remedies for a cash payout, with his legal team considering a Comcare claim, defamation action against media outlets and unfair dismissal from the jobs he lost after the allegations emerged.
Mr Lehrmann has always maintained his innocence and was never convicted of any crime."

How exactly does she think taxpayers owe her anything?
- No-one has been convicted of any crime.

I remember being picked up by the cops in Surfers Paradise on a Friday night back in the 90's for small fines I'd already paid and taken to the old Southport watchouse (first time ever age around 20) and left in a large holding cell covered wall to wall in urine and feces across the weekend that no-one would clean up.

They let me out Monday morning when they confirmed the fines had already been paid.
I should've sued them but didn't know enough about my rights in those days.
If only I got a million bucks a piece for all the nights I went out and got drunk when I was young and exhibited poor judgement myself.

What they hell were they doing letting drunk people into Parliament House at 2am for anyway?
Go home, or get a motel.

Unrelated, but look at all these girls of today embracing their 'slut era'
http://www.tiktok.com/music/Slut-Era-7149133288610498561?lang=en

Pell was not found innocent. He won in the High
Court on a legal technicality. He was not exonerated.
This case was not about justice but about the law.

http://theconversation.com/how-george-pell-won-in-the-high-court-on-a-legal-technicality-133156

For the umpteenth time, stupid, there was no technicality; the majority finding was that Pell could not have possibly done what he was accused of doing in place and time. You are like an ideological music box, playing the same old tunes every you are wound up.

Pell got off on a legal technicality according to the
High Court.

As I said in my last Post. Both complainant and defendant have been denied justice according to our Australian standard of jurisprudence.

And as ARMCHAIR CRITIC correctly asked '...what the hell were the security officers doing permitting two inebriated people ingress into Parliament House a 0200h? Surely a clear breach of security and SPOs? Neither were sitting Members, nor had they a lawful excuse to do so? And the remarks attributed to TTBN - The matter was tried in the media, so neither have received justice merely innuendo rumour and unsupported facts - nothing tested in a Court of Law.

In their defence, many of these workers are intimidated by the haughty and imperious attitudes that many staff in PH display, to these 'mere attendants'. Remember these Attendants are on a relatively low wage scale, and fear of severe repercussions should they report impropriety or other misdemeanours to the Joint House Department.

And another fact I'll share with you all; Physical security at PH is undertaken by Attendants of the Joint House Department, many of whom needed to remain 'mum' at the 'goings on, in that awful structure.

And I know, who the individual was, who received the brief to train all 'Joint House' Attendants in physical security and primary terrorists interdiction. The tales of woe, and negligence, he heard from many of these downtrodden Attendants, utterly amazed him, it really did. But perhaps that's best left for another day.

"Pell was not found innocent."

That's true. He was innocent until proven guilty. He wasn't proven guilty therefore he remained innocent. No one ever charged with a crime is found innocent. They REMAIN innocent until proven guilty. Its been the rule for a coupla thousand years.

"Pell got off on a legal technicality"

That's very true. The technicality that he wasn't guilty.

Lehrmann didn't get the chance to prove he wasn't guilty. A corrupt judicial system accused him and then refused to try to prove it

mhaze,

A couple of things. As the link I gave earlier tells us -

"The cardinal's convictions by unanimous jury verdicts were
a landmark event in Australian history. The High Court's
decision may undermine confidence in the legal system
especially in child sexual abuse prosecutions."

"The High Court did not ask whether Pell committed the
offences. It asked whether the two majority judges in the
Victorian Court of Appeal in dismissing Pell's
earlier appeal made an error about the nature of the
correct legal principles or their application. "

"Pell has won on a legal technicality but he will
continue to be assailed by multiple law suits. In contrast
to the complainant who has been believed by a jury, by a
majority judgement and by a substantial body of public
opinion."

As for Lehrmann?

There are court documents that show other allegations against
the man. He's been accused of having sexually assaulted and
harassed a number of other women.

But hey, whatever rocks your boat

Hello there FOXY...

You say the same fellow, MR LEHRMANN has been accused of indecency with other woman, in some alleged court documents? Then those documents should be entered into evidence provided they can be authenticated of course. This is one helluva a mess, an utter disgrace, I'm so glad I'm out of the job now; Is all I can say. So typical of the Australian Judicial system.

When politics and the legal system collide the outcome is a train wrack. That is why its so important to uphold the doctrine of 'Separation of Power' which divides the institutions of government into three branches: legislative, executive and judicial: the legislature makes the laws; the executive puts the laws into operation; and the judiciary interprets the laws, one must not interfere in the duties of the other two.

Dear O Sung Wu and Paul,

The documents apparently have been pulled however they said -
"Within the same initial period, allegations were published
to the effect that the man who had sexually assaulted the
complainant was also accused of having sexually assaulted
and harassed a number of other women." These documents
showed other allegations but were pulled because they were
thought to be able to influence the jury.

So much for our judicial system - as you point out.

From Foxy's own link...
"In their full reasons, the High Court concluded an independent assessment of the evidence by the Court of Appeal should have concluded there ought to have been sufficient doubt in the jury’s minds to preclude the verdict from being open."

ie the High Court found that the EVIDENCE was sufficient to create enough doubt such that there was reasonable doubt.

The High Court found that the trial failed to give sufficient weight to this doubt and the Appeals Court failed to recognise the failure of the jury.

So it wasn't a technicality unless you think the doctrine of 'beyond reasonable doubt' is merely a technical issue as opposed to the bedrock of British jurisprudence.

All this from the same article Foxy relies on. How did she miss that? On that, I don't have reasonable doubt.

Brittany is now headed back to the court chasing money.

The Lehrmann prosecution (or is it persecution?) was dropped because of fear about poor Brittany's mental health.

But now she's voluntarily headed back to court. It seems that Brittany's mental health has shown a miraculous improvement now that a bit of money is involved.

The link I gave earlier made it clear that the continual
convictions by unanimous jury verdicts regarding the
Pell case were a landmark in Australian legal history.
And that the High Courts decision will be a case to
examine for the legal world and for society more broadly.
Because the High Court's decision may undermine confidence
in the legal system especially in child sexual abuse
prosecutions.

The High Court did not ask whether Pell committed the offences.
It merely asked whether the two majority judges in the
Victorian court of appeal in dismissing Pell's earlier appeal
made an error about the nature of the correct legal principles
or their application. In other So Pell won on a words whether they erred on a legal technicality?

Pell won on a legal technicality even though - his innocence will
forever be in doubt. By contrast the complainant has been
believed by a jury, by a majority judgement, and by a
substantial body of public opinion.

As for blaming Britanny Higgins for seeking compensation?
Mr Lehrmann is doing the same. We'll have to wait and see what
the outcome will be.

"The link I gave earlier made it clear..."

Well I also quoted from that link, which, despite its obvious bias, inadvertently showed that it wasn't a mere technicality but a decision by 7 judges to nil that the jury had erred by not finding reasonable doubt.

I'm not blaming Brittany for going for whatever pay-day she can get from her accusations. I'm just pointing out the unbelievable hypocrisy in cancelling the trial because of her mental state and then immediately instigating another trial when there's bucks to be made.

Somebody is trying to convince a majority that they have a need for change.
The government is not keeping us posted on this issue.
I want to know...

Just who are these people?
How many of them are there?
Are they a group which has meetings?
Has it formally appointed a spokesperson?

What exactly do they want?
Why do they want it?
Will they give anything in return?
Does their ancestry have anything to do with their claim?
If so, what does their DNA tell us about them?

It seems to me we are working in the dark here.
How about a bit of light on the issue?

We cannot live in the past.
We can only learn from it.
What happened to us in the past must stay in the past.
We cannot turn back time.
We cannot bring the past in to the present, and live with it now.

mhaze,

You and I are not going to agree on the Pell case.
We see things differently. The same goes for the
Higgins/Lehrmann case. "You can lead a horse to water..."

Did you know horses are afraid of puddles - because they
can't see the bottom?

Ipso Fatso,

We can correct the past by telling the truth
about its history. And by fixing the present.
We now will have the opportunity to do so.
The information has already been provided and will
continue to be provided for everyone what this is all
about. It's available on the web.

BTW:

Here's a link for you:

http://abc.net.au/news/2012-12-09/20-year-anniversary-redfern-speech/4416732

Ipso Fatso,

I believe that people can change. The truth is not hard
to see if you open your eyes.

This is one of those rare times I must say: 'methinks thou protesteth too much'.
None of us has any responsibility for something done a long time ago.
Things happened back then, some good, some less so.
They were dealt with at the time, and society moved on.
There were grievances aplenty I am sure, but we shouldn't drag those along with us through the centuries?
That is a foolish notion to have?
And it is foolish to engage in feuds?

Ownership is a case in point.
We only own what we can defend, or have defended for us.
This includes land and freedoms.

When we are born, we wake up to the world as it is today.
We don't need anyone cluttering up our world with long past grievances.
Practical 'conventions' and 'traditions' are ok.
But it seems there are some who want to keep absurd ideas alive.
Are they just trying to be noticed?
Let us stop all this absurd and wasteful back-chatter, and move forward together, purposefully and peacefully.

Hi Ipso Fatso,

Its about recognition of the past through truth telling. For too long Australia failed to come to term with the reality of its past history in relation to the first inhabitants. We presented a sanitised history of some truth, some distortion of the truth, and some down right lies. Indeed we of today are not responsible for the events of the past, but we are responsible for the ramifications of those past events as they effect today. Our future development is rooted in the past, European colonising of the continent had grievous consequences for Aboriginal people and those consequences are still with us today.

The patronising attitude of, white man knows what's best for Aboriginal people, and should make all the important decisions, has failed and should stop. A new direction of self determination for Aboriginal people is what's called for, 'The Voice' is only a part of that new direction.

Ipso Fatso,

You say that you can't be held responsible for something
that was done ion the past? Well you certainly can be
held to account if it continues to impact on the present.
And if you have a chance to improve things - you should have
the decency to do so!

Brittany Higgins says she is willing to testify if Bruce Lehrmann launches any civil cases
http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/dec/07/brittany-higgins-says-she-is-willing-to-testify-if-bruce-lehrmann-launches-defamation-cases

If she says she's willing to testify in court, then there's no reason why the retrial to not proceed.

The retrial should go ahead, and any any all evidence relating to whether Brittany fabricated her story or made false allegations should also be fully investigated as well.
- Take her phones, computers etc, access all her records.

Put Brittany on trial for making false allegations.
I think Brittany knows full well that just in the same way the she can't prove she was raped that she also knows others can't prove she fabricated her story either.

I think this whole saga should proceed as far as it can go.
If Brittany can make the accusation, knowing full well that her side of the story cannot be proven with evidence then that opens the door for any woman to make rape allegations without any evidence and without any penalty if they're lying.

BTW, what difference does a research paper regarding fake rape allegations matter anyway?
If the case was about vehicle death due to negligence, and one of the jurors read a research paper on road death statistics what would it matter?

You are looking at this from the wrong end.
Start at the beginning.
Several separated groups of persons had loose control of this continent for thousands of years.
But that control was tenuous at best.
I am quite sure that each group had its 'territory', and defended that from other groups as best they could.
But the benefits of almost total isolation couldn't last.
The world was changing.
Along came the Brits.
They were a determined and superior force, and established overall control of the land.
That was the way of the world back then: and it still is!
Skirmishes took place in many areas, as the inhabitants made a show of defence.
However, they were vanquished, and then had no realistic option but to join the new regime.
They couldn't beat them, so their best move was to join them.
But did they?
Some did, but many didn't.
So a kind of feud continues to this day.
Absurd stories are told about always was and always will be.
The reality is quite different.
Someone is carrying disagreement too far.
It is time for those vocal few to get wise, and become peaceful and productive.
They have no claim to anything their long dead ancestors used or enjoyed.
It is foolish to try to speak or act on behalf of long dead persons.
A long dead person doesn't exist.
Such a person can have no wants or rights or desires.
He cannot be charged with an offence.
He cannot charge others with an offence.
He cannot own anything or make decisions.
He exists only as an awareness in the mind.
He did what he could while alive, then passed the work to the younger generation.
Who eventually became old, and so on...
It is disgracefully foolish to pretend that long dead persons can control us today.
They are historical fact only.
We live in the present, and must continue to do so.
And we must hope that a superior force doesn't overwhelm our present day democracy.

Being among the group of the more astute political and social pundits on the Forum I never believed the claim by the' Cow Cocky' Party that their decision to oppose an Aboriginal Voice to parliament had unanimous support from within. Federal MP Andrew Gee has resigned from the party in protest at their short sighted cockeyed decision to oppose the Voice. Along with his contrary view on the Voice, Gee sighted the failure of the National Party to adequately represent regional Australia as another reason to say stick it fellas! Just more evidence that the Conservatives are a spent force in Australian politics. The Ex-Minister for Everything will be the next to go.