Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Leisure and Society
Society
Regions of the World
Australian & New Zealand
The Voice
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Philip_B" data-source="post: 77340508" data-attributes="member: 389027"><p>Well here we are, four months down the track and it concerns me the level of poverty in the debate on both sides of the argument. </p><p></p><p>The question is not if we should have The Voice or not, but rather if that proposition should be in the Constitution. Whilst I realise we are well used to ineptocracy, most of us feel that if we were to spend X million dollars on a new football stadium, we would consult with the various football codes likely to use it to ensure that it met their needs, and if it was likely to be used for other purposes such as concerts and the like we would likely talk to them as well. Likewise, if we are to spend money addressing issues for the first peoples of our nation, it would seem we would consult with them in a meaningful and proper way.</p><p></p><p>Whilst there have been a number of efforts in the area, numbers of these bodies have been dissolved for whatever reason, and so with little progress we return to the drawing board. In order to break this cycle, we seem to be being asked to put it in the Constitution so the body cannot be simply dissolved. </p><p></p><p>Much has been made of the cost of such a body, and little has been said of the cost of this not going ahead. </p><p></p><p>In general, my default position for any referendum is to vote no, yet on this issue I find myself increasingly of a mind to vote yes, however, that is not down to the yes or no campaign, both of whom are worthy of a Shania Twain lyric (that don't impress me much).</p><p></p><p>Given we are to have the Voice however we vote, and I believe it makes sense that we do, the real substance of the Referendum Question is the Recognition of the First Peoples of our Nation, which we ought to do. </p><p></p><p>How are other people travelling on this issue, and where are your thoughts leading you.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Philip_B, post: 77340508, member: 389027"] Well here we are, four months down the track and it concerns me the level of poverty in the debate on both sides of the argument. The question is not if we should have The Voice or not, but rather if that proposition should be in the Constitution. Whilst I realise we are well used to ineptocracy, most of us feel that if we were to spend X million dollars on a new football stadium, we would consult with the various football codes likely to use it to ensure that it met their needs, and if it was likely to be used for other purposes such as concerts and the like we would likely talk to them as well. Likewise, if we are to spend money addressing issues for the first peoples of our nation, it would seem we would consult with them in a meaningful and proper way. Whilst there have been a number of efforts in the area, numbers of these bodies have been dissolved for whatever reason, and so with little progress we return to the drawing board. In order to break this cycle, we seem to be being asked to put it in the Constitution so the body cannot be simply dissolved. Much has been made of the cost of such a body, and little has been said of the cost of this not going ahead. In general, my default position for any referendum is to vote no, yet on this issue I find myself increasingly of a mind to vote yes, however, that is not down to the yes or no campaign, both of whom are worthy of a Shania Twain lyric (that don't impress me much). Given we are to have the Voice however we vote, and I believe it makes sense that we do, the real substance of the Referendum Question is the Recognition of the First Peoples of our Nation, which we ought to do. How are other people travelling on this issue, and where are your thoughts leading you. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Leisure and Society
Society
Regions of the World
Australian & New Zealand
The Voice
Top
Bottom