Opinion The Adelaide Board Politics Thread Part 4

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
About time.

Twitter has labelled Australian public broadcasters ABC and SBS as 'Government-funded Media', just days after the social media giant had a spat with the BBC over accurate descriptions.


It’s time for Musk to label Murdoch media as the personal media arm of the extreme right but he won’t do that, complicit as he is.
 



Trudeau complains that CBC is not fully publicly funded so Elon changes label to '69% government-funded'😂😂😂😂

 
Last edited:

Log in to remove this ad.

True that. Now let me think who set the NDIS up Gillard? Knowing full well they had not the foggiest clue as to how it was going to be fully funded in years to come, just kicked the can down the road for the future Governments to worry about, all coming home to roost now.

 
Yeah "Sorry" achieved so much...Not.

Governments of both major parties have thrown billions if not hundreds of billions at indigenous affairs for decades and decades with very little positive outcomes.

If you think enshrining "some words" in the constitution will make a major difference let alone any difference to the outcomes and behaviour in these rural, outback and remote settlements where the issues exist you too are away with fairies.
This is just another feelgood soiree by the city elites nothing more.

It's ridiculous to enshrine it in the constitution when it could be legislated in a simple act of Parliament.
The real improvements are not going to come from the constitution - but from the legislation that it enables. Doing nothing, the coalition specialty, is not a solution to anything - not climate change, and not indigenous affairs.

Will Labor's proposed solution fix everything? Almost certainly not. Will it improve at least some things? Hopefully. Regardless, it's better than just throwing it in the "too hard basket" and doing nothing whatsoever, which seems to be your solution to everything.

As far as I can ascertain, the reason for putting it in the constitution is to prevent the Coalition from killing it off next time they gain power (assuming they managed to reverse their current demographic death dive). It will force them to keep something known as the Voice, though they will have the powers to define exactly what form that takes - just as Labor will initially.
 
The real improvements are not going to come from the constitution - but from the legislation that it enables. Doing nothing, the coalition specialty, is not a solution to anything - not climate change, and not indigenous affairs.

Will Labor's proposed solution fix everything? Almost certainly not. Will it improve at least some things? Hopefully. Regardless, it's better than just throwing it in the "too hard basket" and doing nothing whatsoever, which seems to be your solution to everything.

As far as I can ascertain, the reason for putting it in the constitution is to prevent the Coalition from killing it off next time they gain power (assuming they managed to reverse their current demographic death dive). It will force them to keep something known as the Voice, though they will have the powers to define exactly what form that takes - just as Labor will initially.
It doesn't necessitate changing the constitution to legislate any of that....

What utter bullshit to bring your personal Political bias into it.

Where have I said doing nothing is the solution, I'll help you out there....nowhere!!

Legislate it and show proof it has beneficial outcomes then take it to the people if it does.

Plenty has been tried to make a difference by both major parties for decades and decades and billions and billions of dollars later the issues are exactly as they were decades and decades ago, if you think putting some mish mash in the constitution will change that you too are away with the fairies.

Maybe listen to indigenous people like Darlene Thomas and the like.

 
Many assumptions in your post are plain wrong.

i doubt any of the 2 he made were wrong. If either was, you'd have actually read and understood what he wrote, kind of a critical skill set for what you're trying to imply. That said, there's incompetent people in every profession. Still, neither of his assumptions would be wrong.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

For the umpteenth time, it is the first step in recognising they are the first inhabitants of this country by putting it in the Constitution.

Is that not appropriate?

And given your Coalition has been in power over the past 20 of the 26 years, what did they ever do to improve outcomes for First Nations? Yeh, * all.

Yes, as always leave it to others, never the conservatives. Same playbook from them.
Mate at this time proposal does not recognise the indigenous population, read the proposal
Once a constitutional change is voted on and approved the wording does not change, the wording on the ballot for a better term is what we will have to live with, and that wording is very broad, it will be decided in the courts

Also, I don't think some of you fully understand the process, At this time I have shown what that wording will be, in order to change that proposal there will have to be another vote in Parliament.
The first step to changing the constitution is for a majority in both House to approve the wording,

Also, a lot of the Problems in outback communities are state-based not federal base so you cannot blame one part of politics without looking at the states.
the proposed changes to the Constitution will not effect change in the states,
 
It doesn't necessitate changing the constitution to legislate any of that....

What utter bullshit to bring your personal Political bias into it.

Where have I said doing nothing is the solution, I'll help you out there....nowhere!!

Legislate it and show proof it has beneficial outcomes then take it to the people if it does.

Plenty has been tried to make a difference by both major parties for decades and decades and billions and billions of dollars later the issues are exactly as they were decades and decades ago, if you think putting some mish mash in the constitution will change that you too are away with the fairies.

Maybe listen to indigenous people like Darlene Thomas and the like.


Changing the Constitution forces the Govt of the Day (whichever side happens to be in power) to have a Voice, with the roles as specified in the Constitution. However, the Govt of the Day will have the ability to change the legislation, to mould the Voice to how they want it to be.

Note that this is not the first time a "Voice", or something very similar to it, has been introduced. Labor created one last time they were in power, and it was dismantled by the Abbott Govt. By changing the Constitution, the next LNP Govt won't be able to completely dismantle it - they will be able to change it, but not to scrap it entirely.

This is the real reason why the ALP want it included in the Constitution - to prevent it from being dismantled (again) in the future.

I'm well aware that there are many indigenous people who oppose it - just as there are many who support it. Oddly enough, you only listen to those who oppose (surprising absolutely nobody). The indigenous community are just as divided as the non-indigenous community, when it comes to the Voice.

Personally, I think that the current system is failing miserably - and we can't afford to just throw it in the "too hard basket", as you are so eager to do. Maybe the proposed system won't work, but it can't possibly be worse than the existing "do nothing" system that the LNP left behind.
 
'I have read the Constitution a few times' - ah that makes you an expert then!
Not an Expert but I do understand how the constitution in Australia Work I do understand that if they get it wrong a select group will determine the outcome.
You are the one who has mentioned that myself and others don't have any understanding of the Australian constitution, you stated this journey,

something this important needs flexibility to change with time, Changing the Constitution is the wrong approach,
 
Changing the Constitution forces the Govt of the Day (whichever side happens to be in power) to have a Voice, with the roles as specified in the Constitution. However, the Govt of the Day will have the ability to change the legislation, to mould the Voice to how they want it to be.

Note that this is not the first time a "Voice", or something very similar to it, has been introduced. Labor created one last time they were in power, and it was dismantled by the Abbott Govt. By changing the Constitution, the next LNP Govt won't be able to completely dismantle it - they will be able to change it, but not to scrap it entirely.

This is the real reason why the ALP want it included in the Constitution - to prevent it from being dismantled (again) in the future.

I'm well aware that there are many indigenous people who oppose it - just as there are many who support it. Oddly enough, you only listen to those who oppose (surprising absolutely nobody). The indigenous community are just as divided as the non-indigenous community, when it comes to the Voice.

Personally, I think that the current system is failing miserably - and we can't afford to just throw it in the "too hard basket", as you are so eager to do. Maybe the proposed system won't work, but it can't possibly be worse than the existing "do nothing" system that the LNP left behind.
And surprising absolutely nobody you only listen to the people that are for it..

I've listened to Marcia Langton call anyone that votes no is a racist.....
 
And surprising absolutely nobody you only listen to the people that are for it..

I've listened to Marcia Langton call anyone that votes no is a racist.....
I acknowledge that there are opinions on both sides. You can't even do that.

At least I understand why they want to change the constitution, which is also more than you can manage.
 
About time.

Twitter has labelled Australian public broadcasters ABC and SBS as 'Government-funded Media', just days after the social media giant had a spat with the BBC over accurate descriptions.


How dare he. Amazing insight, calling a government funded broadcaster government funded.

What is the point being made here?

Is it a good or bad thing? Would it be a good thing if a different party was interfering with the broadcaster?
 
How dare he. Amazing insight, calling a government funded broadcaster government funded.

What is the point being made here?

Is it a good or bad thing? Would it be a good thing if a different party was interfering with the broadcaster?

Twitter is so much better since Elon Musk bought it from the FBI. :)

 
About time.

Twitter has labelled Australian public broadcasters ABC and SBS as 'Government-funded Media', just days after the social media giant had a spat with the BBC over accurate descriptions.


"Government Propaganda" would be more apt.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top