The Roar
The Roar

Keith (no longer) of WA

Roar Rookie

Joined October 2018

42.6k

Views

8

Published

324

Comments

Published

Comments

Hey Christy

Have you been ‘got at’??? This was you a few days ago….

Australian rugby was sold a Gucci handbag but what they got turned out to be nothing but a rip-off bag made in a sweat shop, with the Wallabies losing seven of eight Tests since Jones’ return in January.

and….

Every move Jones has made since returning to Australian rugby, at least in the short term, has blown up in smoke.

From appointing a coaching team of misfits and waving goodbye to household names and making extraordinary selection decisions, including entrusting two unproven playmakers on the world’s biggest stage, Jones’ decision-making has been found wanting.

There’s plenty more…… and NOW you say we should celebrate Jones’ innovation?

Can’t have it both ways mate….

Eddie Jones should be celebrated not booed: Why the worst thing RA could do is sack the Wallabies coach

Except each of those words are appropriate to the context I used them in. You might want to look up the meaning champ.

yeah you might like to do the same mate….

Should Australian sport be raising its voice?

The Voice has no legislative authority.

Neither did ATSIC…. difference here though is once the ‘details’ are worked out and an organization is created, the Australian people (including Indigenous) will be powerless to right the wrongs that happened last time.

Have you considered at all WHY ATSIC wasn’t replaced and all of the funding and functions were devolved as part of the National framework of principles for government service delivery to Indigenous Australians

Yet here we are again 20 years later and a replacement in the form of a ‘voice’ is up for a vote and this time it is to be enshrined in the Constitution…..

Should Australian sport be raising its voice?

‘champ’…. 😂

Should Australian sport be raising its voice?

Yeah they weren’t counted at all, that’s so much better

Did you bother to find out why Section 127 was even there in the Constitution in the first place? And what led to the overwhelming support of Australian for it to be repealed?

Indigenous Australians at Federation were ” dispersed and nomadic. Communications in inland Australia were poor, and frequently non-existent. Today the situation is very different and counting is practicable.”

That’s 1967 wording…. there was not a NO case made out for this and approx 92% of Australians voted YES at the 1967 referendum for the repeal…

Should Australian sport be raising its voice?

WOW!!!

You so disdainfully call men dressed up as women reading stories about pole dancing, bl2wjobs, an@l s3x to our KIDS!!! as ‘dress up’…????? I fear for our country that people can be so obtuse!!!

Do you really think this is healthy for YOUR kids (I’m assuming you are a loving parent)?

Oh, and your Church (yeah but) argument doesn’t stand scrutiny… ANYONE, church or otherwise ‘fiddling of young uns’ is dealt with by law….

Unlike the tolerance of the c@rruption of our kids with ‘drag stories’…

Should Australian sport be raising its voice?

A very good question….

In 1967 the referendum had attached a concise and easy to read argument of the FOR and AGAINST positions that were being voted upon with Pro’s and Cons for each position.

It allowed Australians to make an informed choice. It also resulted in an average of 92% support for the questions asked (one of which included removing the exclusion of Indigenous Australians from the governments ability to make special laws of any race)…

Yet, here we are with absolutely no specifics…. and the question is framed as good vs evil, fairness vs right wing…

It reads like ‘give us a yes vote and then we’re gonna set up another organization that cannot be shut down this time’ and we” deceide what it will be without the country’s input….

Because Indigenous Australians aren’t represented in the Constitution….

Give it a few years and the organization the government creates will be called ATSIC mark 2…..

Should Australian sport be raising its voice?

aaaah the fairness argument… or in other words the politics of envy….

So I ask this…. how will the ‘Voice’ speak? What is the organization that will be created?

And what is to stop the ‘Voice’ bureaucracy becoming another ATSIC, albeit this time a beast protected by the Constitution and all voted for by people with little memory (or ignorance) of prior events and less understanding of the c@rruption shut down?

Should Australian sport be raising its voice?

That’s because it was taken away…, it was called ATSIC and was replaced with the National framework of principles for government service delivery to Indigenous Australians

Should Australian sport be raising its voice?

mate – we’ve already got EVERY state, territory and Fed govt with a minister for indigenous affairs.
You seem bewildered that this is the case…. I’m not sure if you (or Charlie below are old enough to) remember that this was called the National framework of principles for government service delivery to Indigenous Australians and was endorsed by COAG, you know, ALL the states and territories etc… back in the day….
And as I said elsewhere, abolishing ATSIC was proposed by LABOR, not John Howard (I know…. an inconvenient fact that doesn’t fit the LNP bashing narrative….)

Should Australian sport be raising its voice?

No…. the failure of ATSIC was that it was making funding decisions of organizations that the board members held interests in…. (some of us are old enough to remember it)…

It was so bad that the the Australian LABOR Party proposed that ATSIC be abolished if it won the coming election…. 2 weeks later John Howard agreed….

Now where would we be if ATSIC had been a Constitutionally protected organization hmmmm?

Should Australian sport be raising its voice?

Yeah I’m gonna call you out on this mate….

You cite a ‘social justice advocate‘ as your ‘authority‘ on ‘A review of ATSIC‘ then claim that John Howard silenced ATSIC on behalf of big miners such as Gina and Clive….

So here’s some inconvenient truths for ya….

ATSIC wasn’t working, so COAG (the Council of Australian Governments) set up a steering committee in 2002 to review it….

One of the first things that became evident was the conflict of interest of ATSIC funding organizations in which board members held interests (you know.. buying stuff you shouldn’t) which led to the creation of ATSIS as an interim measure, and removed the boards ability to make funding decisions while it was investigated….

ATSIS commenced operations and made recommendations on the way forward…
John Howard on behalf of COAG ENDORSED the proposed framework…

On 30 March 2004, THE AUSTRALIAN LABOR PARTY announced that if it won Government, it would ABOLISH ATSIC and replace it with a new body….. (now there’s an inconvenient truth for ya)

2 weeks later, the government agreed and COAG subsequently endorsed the House of Representatives proposal of the National Framework of principles for Government service delivery to Indigenous Australians.

More than 1 Billion of former ATSIC/ATSIS programs was handed over to mainstream departments where they were to be required to accept responsibility and held accountable for outcomes…..

Then there was an election…..

Your whole argument that John Howard was able to silence ATSIC because of vested (GINA and CLIVE) interests, it’s weakness as it was a legislated body, and therefore it’s ‘need’ to be enshrined in the Constitution is not just false, it exposes the danger of virtue signalling and real world consequences….

If ATSIC had been a Constitutionally mandated body, what mechanism would either the Government or indeed the Australian public have had to stop the rampant ‘work with family’ and wastage…?

I mean it was so bad even Labor said it had to GO!!!

Finally, if even labor said it had to go…. then your argument that it was about the Liberals/John Howard ‘silencing dissent’ doesn’t stand up to even a basic examination…. much less justification for altering our CONSTITUTION!!!!

Should Australian sport be raising its voice?

Yeah I’m gonna call you out on this mate….

You cite a ‘social justice advocate‘ as your ‘authority‘ on ‘A review of ATSIC‘ then claim that John Howard silenced ATSIC on behalf of big miners such as Gina and Clive….

So here’s some inconvenient truths for ya….

ATSIC wasn’t working, so COAG (the Council of Australian Governments) set up a steering committee in 2002 to review it….

One of the first things that became evident was the conflict of interest of ATSIC funding organizations in which board members held interests (you know…. pre-PC it was called corruption) which led to the creation of ATSIS as an interim measure, and removed the boards ability to make funding decisions while it was investigated….

ATSIS commenced operations and made recommendations on the way forward…
John Howard on behalf of COAG ENDORSED the proposed framework…

On 30 March 2004, THE AUSTRALIAN LABOR PARTY announced that if it won Government, it would ABOLISH ATSIC and replace it with a new body….. (now there’s an inconvenient truth for ya)

2 weeks later, the government agreed and COAG subsequently endorsed the House of Representatives proposal of the National Framework of principles for Government service delivery to Indigenous Australians.

More than 1 Billion of former ATSIC/ATSIS programs was handed over to mainstream departments where they were to be required to accept responsibility and held accountable for outcomes…..

Then there was an election…..

Your whole argument that John Howard was able to silence ATSIC because of vested (GINA and CLIVE) interests, it’s weakness as it was a legislated body, and therefore it’s ‘need’ to be enshrined in the Constitution is not just false, it exposes the danger of virtue signalling and real world consequences….

If ATSIC had been a Constitutionally mandated body, what mechanism would either the Government or indeed the Australia public have had to stop the rampant corruption and wastage…?

I mean it was so bad even Labor said it had to GO!!!

Finally, if even labor said it had to go…. then your argument that it was about the Liberals/John Howard ‘silencing dissent’ doesn’t stand up to even a basic examination…. much less justification for altering our CONSTITUTION!!!!

Should Australian sport be raising its voice?

Yes, virtue signalling is indeed rampant….

That said, many sporting organizations and businesses are learning to their cost that NOT everyone appreciates the lecturing, the posturing and the hectoring….

Bud Light is an interesting case in point (is that innocuous enough mods?) as to what happens when your DEI forgets your ROI

Should Australian sport be raising its voice?

nah… you’re the one doing that…. I said rights….not unfair advantage…
Indigenous Australians already have rights that are exclusive to them…
and without changing the constitution…. my comment stands

Should Australian sport be raising its voice?

I’d suggest you probably haven’t either…

Or you would know something of it’s history and the changes made over the years that relate….

Should Australian sport be raising its voice?

That already happened… way back in Australia’s history…

Indigenous Australians were removed as an exception in the Constitution, so that the Commonwealth had the power to make special laws as it saw fit for ALL races…..

Today’s partisan media/politics/hoi polloi have no idea of the history in this very fact….

It begs the question…. why not simply make special laws (they already exist) to do exactly what is being proposed instead of altering our constitution?

Should Australian sport be raising its voice?

this reminds me of the same sex marriage debate…. if you don’t agree then you’re phobic…..

and look where we are now…. drag stories to kids…..

Should Australian sport be raising its voice?

The Constitution already recognizes Indigenous Australians…. It has the power to make any laws for the people of ANY race, “for whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws”…

Should Australian sport be raising its voice?

Well, I would beg to disagree…..

Indigenous Australians have all sorts of rights that every other race in Australia does not… eg Anunga Rules…

And that would be purely because it had been heard and considered….

Should Australian sport be raising its voice?

“Read it for yourself.”

I’d suggest you take your own advice….. (see 1967 Referendum above)

Should Australian sport be raising its voice?

Helping people understand what it means in a practical sense.

and again (regardless of your political bias), the weakness of the whole thing is again demonstrated…..

Should Australian sport be raising its voice?

This is quite disingenuous….

In 1967 the Commonwealth (constitutionally) had no power (except in territories) in relation to Indigenous Australians… it had nothing to do with counting indigenous Australians as ‘human beings’….

That is entirely your own bias and selective editing….

You failed both your own ‘History 101’ and impartiality test…. oh, and they were already voting at that time and had been for some years….

discussed….

Should Australian sport be raising its voice?

THIS!!!

Should Australian sport be raising its voice?

If the government wants to legislate on things affecting miners, doctors, retirees, even sports etc etc, they typically consult with them first.

Totally agree… but then why do we need to change the constitution the ensure the government ‘consults’…..?

Should Australian sport be raising its voice?

close