+- Carlton Supporters Club (http://new.carltonsc.com)
+-- Forum: Social Club (http://new.carltonsc.com/forum-6.html)
+--- Forum: Blah-Blah Bar (http://new.carltonsc.com/forum-23.html)
+--- Thread: General Discussions (/thread-4803.html)
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
Re: General Discussions - kruddler - 08-01-2022
(08-01-2022, 05:15 AM)Thryleon link Wrote:Someone had to start this new conversation given the talk about an Indigenous voice in parliament.
I want to state that I have no opposition to an indigenous voice in parliament up front, so people can understand that what I am about to state next, doesn't come from anywhere but a genuine confusion on what this whole shemozzle of an idea is about.
Parliamentary officials, are elected to represent the people and govern on their behalf. I am genuinely confused, as to why they are now creating a position, which doubles up on their duty. Indigenous people, have the right to vote, and have the ability to vote for their representatives if they wish to do so.
What exactly is this whole endeavour for, and whom does it benefit? The answer to me is clear, the pigs at the trough get another position to ensure that no indigenous aspiring politican takes their seat. Id rather see some indigenous people running for seats in the next election, than simply creating yet another virtue signalled position in government.
The politicians continue to take the mickey out of us and then ride the gravy train into retirement when people are struggling to put food on the table and power their houses in the current economic environment.
To answer your question.
I think its hard for minorities to get majority.
Re: General Discussions - Thryleon - 08-01-2022
^
Nope. Anyone who votes is represented by the candidate in their electorate. You have missed my point.
Politicians serve their electorate.
Re: General Discussions - kruddler - 08-01-2022
(08-01-2022, 07:44 AM)Thryleon link Wrote:^I get that, but how is a voice going to get into parliament if the minorities can never get a majority?
Nope. Anyone who votes is represented by the candidate in their electorate. You have missed my point.
Politicians serve their electorate.
I'm not saying i agree or disagree, just pointing out the opposing view.
Whats the alternative?
Re: General Discussions - Gointocarlton - 08-01-2022
(08-01-2022, 07:44 AM)Thryleon link Wrote:^Politicians are in it to get in, serve some time doing SFA, qualify for a pension and then get a free ride for ever. They couldnt give a flying fork about you or I.
Nope. Anyone who votes is represented by the candidate in their electorate. You have missed my point.
Politicians serve their electorate.
Re: General Discussions - Professer E - 08-01-2022
So who is Thorpe representing.... A minority group or the electorate? Government for the 1% or the 99%?
Re: General Discussions - Lods - 08-01-2022
The end answer (and it won't be in my life time or even my children's....because theres a lot of ground to make up) is that there will come a time when there is no need for a representation of any minority groups...we'll all be accepted as one and the same.
Re: General Discussions - dodge - 08-01-2022
I believe Indigenous voice is about getting recognition of the first peoples into the constitution and then having an advisory group which doesn't fill a full parliamentary function.
Prof, Lydia is the other side of the fence to Pauline, so represents the other side of Pauline. Or the way she carries on, just herself.
Re: General Discussions - DJC - 08-01-2022
I heard an Aboriginal bloke on the wireless today who gave a very good reason why an Indigenous voice to Parliament would be a good thing.
Basically, he said that, as a taxpayer, he was unhappy about the money that is spent on programs for Indigenous folk and doesn’t produce the intended/desired outcomes. He felt that having an Indigenous voice to Parliament would mean that Government funding for Indigenous programs would be better targeted and produce better outcomes. That would be a win-win.
The first time I voted in a Commonwealth election, I voted for Neville Bonner who became the first ever Indigenous person in Parliament. However, Senator Bonner and the Indigenous people in the current Parliament are there to represent their electorates, not just Indigenous people (who would make up a small percentage of the voters in most electorates).
I don’t know the mechanics of the Indigenous voice, no-one does at this stage, but I am familiar with The Uluru Statement from the Heart. It’s advocating constitutional change to improve representation of Indigenous Australians to the Commonwealth Government. Victoria already has such an arrangement in place and South Australia is establishing its Indigenous representative body. The sky hasn’t fallen in Victoria and I suspect that it won’t in South Australia … or the Commonwealth.
Re: General Discussions - Lods - 08-01-2022
If you were the folks framing this legislation /ammendment you would want to do extensive polling to make sure it would get up before proceeding. It would be terribly damaging, divisive and disconcerting to indigenous folk if it failed.
Re: General Discussions - DJC - 08-01-2022
(08-01-2022, 01:17 PM)Lods link Wrote:If you were the folks framing this legislation /ammendment you would want to do extensive polling to make sure it would get up before proceeding. It would be terribly damaging, divisive and disconcerting to indigenous folk if it failed.
Absolutely Lods!
The way to kill a referendum is to focus on the detail of the implementation, as Howard did with the monarchy referendum. Success generally comes with a focus on broad principles. The 1967 referendum simply asked whether the constitution should be amended, " to give the Commonwealth Parliament the power to make laws with respect to Aboriginal people in Australia, and to include Aboriginal people in national censuses." The critical factor in the success of the 1967 referendum was that it had bipartisan support and a no case was not presented. If there's a no case this time, it's hard to see how the referendum could succeed.