Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Paxter

Aussie Thread: Democracy Sausage

Recommended Posts

10 hours ago, karaddin said:

I'm really worried at how much a PM like Morrison combined with an utterly spineless Labor opposition will drag the country on social issues. What's currently going on in the US has reversed the trend towards acceptance in millenials there and a recent study reported that the idea of a family or friend coming out as gay would make them "uncomfortable" has increased among millenials for 2 years in a row. While the total numbers are still heavily for acceptance, the trend is concerning.

To be precise it was a member of the LGBTQ. Though this could mean the immediate thought of who that is has shifted. Where as in 2014, the first thought to such questions was simply a person’s sexual orientation, now its gender. That’s my generous interpretation of the poll. I recognize your concerns but it should be known there are other polls that dont paint such a dower picture: Gay marriage is increasingly becoming acceptable among most age groups-including milinials, and Generation Zers for example 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
13 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Not sure how you can really be a Christian without believing that the only way to Salvation is through Christ. It is the fundamental principle of the religion.

So pushing for “Christian exceptionalism” should be a given for any true Christian.

Here I make a clear distinction, of course, between believers in Christianity on the one hand, and those who just feel an affinity to Christian values and traditions, but discard its fundamental truths, like many modern watered down “Christians”.

Christianity is by its very nature divisive. There is no getting away from that.

Some Christians are divisive because they don't understand their own Holy book or Christ Himself. Christianity is, in fact, inclusive. Christ affirmed the divinity of Moses, and that there are many other legitimate religions in the world. The Bible (Book of Revelation) confirmed the prophethood of Mohammad and his immediate successor.

Edited by The Anti-Targ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
9 hours ago, Paxter said:

I'm going to interrupt this broadcast with a simple interjection:

NSW! NSW! NSW!

Well done. Was closer than I thought it would be. Very exciting to watch the last 10 minutes.

In other Queensland news:

  • After 6 months of being idle due to not meeting a gender quota, coinciding with 4 deaths in the industry, the State Government’s Mine Health and Safety Advisory Committee will now be able to meet. Priorities. I wonder if Jackie Trad has taken her own advice and started re-skilling yet.
  • Anti Adani activists were planning to shut down Brisbane from 7:30 (I have to assume they don't realise what time the city gets up after origin) by swarming the roads. Local news reports warned that trains were to be the best way to get into town. Turns out the protesters were outnumbered by media and there's been no interruption that I have seen. Luckily the warning cleared the roads for the morning. Best thing they have achieved since the election.
Edited by Squab

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Squab said:

Well done. Was closer than I thought it would be. Very exciting to watch the last 10 minutes.

I'm actually a West Australian (and a fairly cringe-worthy parochial one), but it's hard not to get swept up in the Blues atmosphere after having lived in Sydney for a while. 

I'm guessing, however, that eight straight wins followed by another three would inoculate most Queensland fans from despair. NSW had to come back eventually. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

So. Wyatt is saying some good things about progressing indigenous recognition in the Constitution. The problem is that the nice rhetoric is not helping overcome some key obstacles:

  1. I see no real progress in reconciling Aboriginal demands for a body to advise parliament and a treaty process with the Coalition's flat-out rejection of both of those ideas when MT was PM. 
  2. The proposed timetable (three years) seems pretty short. They should have had a proper Minister (i.e. Wyatt) in place before the election so that the consultation process could have begun earlier. 
  3. The government has reserved the right not to proceed with a referendum if it doesn't look likely to succeed. So the promise of a vote is slightly hollow. 

On the bright side (and the Coalition deserve credit for this):

  1. They have a good Minister in place who understands and is passionate about the issues.
  2. They have committed to a truth-telling process as part of Constitutional reform.
  3. They have put this on the agenda within the first 100 days of Government.
  4. Tony Abbott is not an MP (OK we have Warringah electors to thank for that one). 

Overall I'm actually optimistic about a decent policy outcome on this topic. Much more so than at any time since Labor was in power. I think ScoMo is reasonably genuine about the Aboriginal Affairs portfolio and Wyatt definitely is. 

Edited by Paxter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 7/12/2019 at 9:41 PM, Paxter said:

So. Wyatt is saying some good things about progressing indigenous recognition in the Constitution. The problem is that the nice rhetoric is not helping overcome some key obstacles:

  1. I see no real progress in reconciling Aboriginal demands for a body to advise parliament and a treaty process with the Coalition's flat-out rejection of both of those ideas when MT was PM. 
  2. The proposed timetable (three years) seems pretty short. They should have had a proper Minister (i.e. Wyatt) in place before the election so that the consultation process could have begun earlier. 
  3. The government has reserved the right not to proceed with a referendum if it doesn't look likely to succeed. So the promise of a vote is slightly hollow. 

On the bright side (and the Coalition deserve credit for this):

  1. They have a good Minister in place who understands and is passionate about the issues.
  2. They have committed to a truth-telling process as part of Constitutional reform.
  3. They have put this on the agenda within the first 100 days of Government.
  4. Tony Abbott is not an MP (OK we have Warringah electors to thank for that one). 

Overall I'm actually optimistic about a decent policy outcome on this topic. Much more so than at any time since Labor was in power. I think ScoMo is reasonably genuine about the Aboriginal Affairs portfolio and Wyatt definitely is. 

This intrigues me. What is the ultimate hoped for outcome with this endeavour? A form of veto right for Indigenous Australians in key national decisions? Or just a symbolic mechanism to air their views in parliament? 

What does the desired ”Voice” actually mean in practice?

Edited by Free Northman Reborn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

This intrigues me. What is the ultimate hoped for outcome with this endeavour? A form of veto right for Indigenous Australians in key national decisions? Or just a symbolic mechanism to air their views in parliament? 

What does the desired ”Voice” actually mean in practice?

Personally I don't think it means either of the two options you posited. Certainly it's not a veto in my view (though that was what Joyce claimed it might become). It shouldn't be purely symbolic either, because then there is no policy benefit to Aboriginal people. Instead, what the Uluru Statement seems to suggest is that the 'voice' should be an advisory body, enshrined in the Constitution, to review legislation and provide advice (non-binding, but considered by the Parliament as a matter of constitutional convention perhaps) on the implications of statute for Aboriginal people.

Another option put forward by the Coalition is for the advisory body(ies?) to be merely legislated, though that legislation could then be easily overturned and would not have anything like constitutional status. The advantage though of the legislative approach is that you are still creating an official government body that you can fund to give good-quality advice, without needing it to be the subject of a referendum or mucking around with con law. 

Of course there are many interpretations of the 'voice' element and they still need to be considered, analysed and debated. The conversation that is happening now is a lot better than Turnbull's approach, which was simply to dismiss the voice out of hand, and it does make me more optimistic. By appointing Wyatt, ScoMo is showing he is more serious about this than say, Abbott, who appointed himself as Aboriginal Affairs minister. But hey, constitutional reform is very hard in Australia, and I understand the reluctance for change when it comes to our constitutional settings. 

ETA: When I have more time, I could give an example of how the voice might actually work in practice. The area of work I have been involved with in the past two years (child protection) often uses quasi-official Aboriginal advisory bodies to make decisions/provide advice on, say, which organisations to fund to provide child protection services or what kind of services work for Aboriginal people. Queensland is going a step further than NSW with things like local-decision making models (have a look at the diagram on page xviii). 

Edited by Paxter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And in a pleasing turnaround...Joyce has now retracted his previous comments that that the voice would be a “third chamber” of Parliament. Onya Barnaby.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bob Brown has stunningly come out against a wind farm in Tasmania in an awesome display of NIMBY action on climate change. Luckily this has come to the attention of many in Central Queensland and I saw a caravan of mine spec vehicles heading towards Tasmania. Assumedly it will be to “raise awareness” and explain to all those heads in Tasmania the benefits and jobs associated with wind farms and electricity generation and how it might even lessen their reliance on Basslink.

In a similarly woke move, Jacinda Ardern has come across the ditch to explain how it’s not Kiwis committing crimes in Australia that is having a “corrosive” effect on the relationship between the two countries but that Australia has the audacity to send them back when they do. Unfortunately for NZ, Australia is no longer accepting convicts from anywhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Squab said:

In a similarly woke move, Jacinda Ardern has come across the ditch to explain how it’s not Kiwis committing crimes in Australia that is having a “corrosive” effect on the relationship between the two countries but that Australia has the audacity to send them back when they do. Unfortunately for NZ, Australia is no longer accepting convicts from anywhere.

That’s a slight oversimplification - the deportations are on the basis of a character test. As I understand the law, you don’t have to have been convicted of any crime in Australia or anywhere else.

Personally I think the law is a little draconian (perhaps there should be exceptions for NZers who have been here a long time or with strong family ties) but not completely unreasonable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Squab said:

Bob Brown has stunningly come out against a wind farm in Tasmania in an awesome display of NIMBY action on climate change. Luckily this has come to the attention of many in Central Queensland and I saw a caravan of mine spec vehicles heading towards Tasmania. Assumedly it will be to “raise awareness” and explain to all those heads in Tasmania the benefits and jobs associated with wind farms and electricity generation and how it might even lessen their reliance on Basslink.

In a similarly woke move, Jacinda Ardern has come across the ditch to explain how it’s not Kiwis committing crimes in Australia that is having a “corrosive” effect on the relationship between the two countries but that Australia has the audacity to send them back when they do. Unfortunately for NZ, Australia is no longer accepting convicts from anywhere.

Actually, I think it is New Zealand that is being made to accept our convicts. The NZ government is objecting to the deportation of people who have no or very few links to NZ other than citizenship - for example an Indigenous Australian man who had citizenship due to being born in NZ of Australian parents during their visit to the country. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Wall Flower said:

Actually, I think it is New Zealand that is being made to accept our convicts. The NZ government is objecting to the deportation of people who have no or very few links to NZ other than citizenship - for example an Indigenous Australian man who had citizenship due to being born in NZ of Australian parents during their visit to the country. 

Right, there are multiple levels of NZ citizenship now. How very Orwellian.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean, when someone born in NZ goes to Aussie when they're 3 years old and ends up being a criminal / person of ill repute, which society should bear the cost and responsibility of that person's wrong doings? 

So please, NZ doesn't want your criminals just because they have a NZ next to their citizenship status. We'll mea culpa and take the ones back who were already fully fledged arseholes when they left NZ. But don't send us the people who got broken by your system. Pottery barn principle should apply: you break it, you own it, you pay for it.

And yeah, there are multiple levels of citizenship in most countries. People who weren't born in a country can have their citizenship revoked and sent packing much easier than people who were born in that country. Look at the USA, only a natural born citizen can be president, so not all citizens are created equal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
40 minutes ago, Squab said:

Right, there are multiple levels of NZ citizenship now. How very Orwellian.

Ardern's objections aren't about people who've come over for a couple years and who are now being kicked out for criminal activity. It's people who have been here since childhood and have almost no links back to NZ. It's not unreasonable for Australia to bear responsibility for these people. That's aside from the ethics of wholesale deportations of people to countries they have very few links to or support in. 

Your initial post about this was disingenuous to say the least.

Edited by Impmk2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Impmk2 said:

Ardern's objections aren't about people who've come over for a couple years and who are now being kicked out for criminal activity. It's people who have been here since childhood and have almost no links back to NZ. It's not unreasonable for Australia to bear responsibility for these people. That's aside from the ethics of wholesale deportations of people to countries they have very few links to or support in. 

Your initial post about this was disingenuous to say the least.

Thanks to you and the Anti-Targ for explaining the point I was trying to make much more eloquently. In the case of two Indigenous men who the Government proposed to deport, both were born overseas (in NZ and PNG) to Australian parents and have lived in Australia from early childhood. Neither had any idea that they were not actually Australian citizens. I imagine that not being aware of citizenship status is not unusual for people who have been in the country since childhood.

I absolutely agree that people who have grown up in Australia and become criminals here should be our responsibility.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The other problem it creates is that often these New Zealanders in name only have partners and dependent children who are natural born Australians, so kicking the one person out creates a significant hardship on these Australians who aren't guilty of anything and yet they become victims of spiteful Australian govt actions that have no sound policy rationale. The net effect on Australian society is likely to be negative. And in a lot of those cases the Australian taxpayer is going to have to fork out for welfare payments because the main income earner has been sent away to most likely wind up on the dole in NZ and unable to financially support the family back in Australia.

I wonder if the Australian govt might be willing to stump up a bit of cash to help pay for the life-long incarceration of the Aussie bloke who massacred 50 people in Christchurch a few months back. I mean quid pro-quo and all that. You want us to pay for the NZers who've caused trouble over there by taking them back. We won't send this menace to society back to you because that would just be mean, but some donation towards the hundred grand or so a year it will cost to keep him healthy for the next 40-50 years would be appreciated.

The cases @Wall Flower has cited are truly bizarre and are a complete perversion of any kind of natural justice principles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shayna Jack's hearing is going on for her doping charge. It's to be expected but I find the coverage demonising the Chinese swimmer and yet giving the benefit of the doubt to an Australian girl as pretty horrid.

As I understand it, Sun Yang (the Chinese swimmer) had two incidents - in 2014 he had a banned substance in his body, because he took some medication to treat an unrelated condition (and the substance had only become banned four months earlier). He claimed an honest mistake. Then in 2018 he allegedly destroyed vials of his own blood because the blood testers did not have the right accreditation or paperwork. Weird and suspicious, but if you're a professional swimmer I could somewhat understand not wanting your blood to be in the wrong hands.

Now with Shayna Jack, we don't know anything except that she was found with a banned substance and that both the A and B tests returned this, so she will not be contesting the accuracy of the tests but rather contesting on the basis that she doesn't know how the substance got in there.

If you're going to label the Chinese guy a drug cheat, then you can hardly turn around and say "heartbreak" and "mystery" and all that for the blonde Australian girl. Never underestimate the power of nationalist favouritism or a blonde girl!

If she can't explain the presence of the banned substance I hope she gets hit with the maximum ban. Otherwise anyone could claim innocence on that basis of "Gee I don't know how it got there".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Media and public double standards on the basis of race and nationality? No, that could never happen. Everyone is equal before the law dontcha know?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Media and public double standards on the basis of race and nationality? No, that could never happen. Everyone is equal before the law dontcha know?

I know, I know, I'm expecting too much...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×