Opinion Commentary & Media VI

[Kangaroos techno]

Unless you decided what you didn’t like before reading what the club actually said.

A big assumption. i read it in its entirety.

Your comment confirms what others have said - if you don't agree 100% = well you obviously are a terrible person and lack the knowledge to make the right decision (which this board does for every controversial topic and the same posters have remained on the pedestal ready to talk down to others).

I will say it once again, I agree with North's stance of commenting on this issue. I simply disagree with providing resources to its members in hopes that they will do the same. The club might as well be outside the polling booths handing out pamphlets with instructions on how to vote yes. I'd have the same opinion regardless of what the issue is.

 

[Kangaroos4eva]

Love the passion everyone, by maybe it’s time to shift the voice discussion to another thread.

 

[QueenslandRoo]

How exactly do you get that from the words “North Melbourne encourages every Australian to take time to listen, learn and understand. As a club we are taking the opportunity to provide education and resources to our staff and players to help them make their own informed decisions.” Unless you decided what you didn’t like before reading what the club actually said.

As a nation we benefit from living on land that was stolen, and try not to notice the lasting negative impacts of that dispossession. The very least we can do is accept the invitation to listen to indigenous people when our governments considers policies that will affect them - god knows, all the things governments have tried so far with limited input from indigenous people haven‘t done enough to improve things.

This proposal doesn’t guarantee any of the thoughts and suggestions that come through the Voice will be implemented - just that our governments will hear what they have to say. I don’t understand how that could be a bad thing. I understand if people think it’s not enough, but I don’t understand how anyone can think it’s too much.

Governments listen to plenty of people with money and influence now, and we never get to know about those deals - this will be a transparent setup where we can all see what has been said and what comes of it.

People aren’t perfect, indigenous and non-indigenous, and the Voice like our governments is also not going to be perfect because it represents people. It is still worth doing. Being prepared to listen - not just when we feel like it but as a sustained effort - is literally the least we can do.

It's just an offer to listen. What's wrong with listenings?

The answer ... absolutely nothing. Nothing is wrong with listening.

But here's the better question: Why the need to change the constitution in order for the government to start listening to Indigenous people? The government can listen this afternoon if they wish!

We have 11 Indigenous MPs in Parliament. Does the government not listen to them?

We have an Indigenous Minister at the Cabinet table. Is she not listening? Isn't her job to travel to Indigenous communities and to liaise with Indigenous organisations and represent their thoughts back to government? She suddenly cannot hear anything without constitutional change?

Oh, but we need a body to listen to.

There are more than 1000 Indigenous bodies

Oh, but we need ONE body to listen to on behalf of ALL indigenous people.

That should be a big clue that something is amiss. One body will claim to speak for all indigenous people? How does that work? I suppose all Indigenous people think the same. What a racist assumption that is!

On the one hand we are told there are more than 300 'First Nations', all of whom will want individual treaties with the Australian Government, and on the other, that the Voice will be able to represent all of them.

Good luck with that. Highly respected indigenous voices Jacinta Price and Noel Pearson are completely at odds over the Voice.

And who will select these elite Aboriginals who will deem to speak on behalf of the rest? We don't know. Albanese says THAT detail will be worked out later. The design process of the Voice is set to begin six months AFTER the referendum.

Right. "Trust me, I'm a politician". If you trust that process, I have a bridge to sell you! DM me for details.

The reason we need a body in the constitution is that every time government changes, the goal posts move. The Voice will ensure that regardless of government, there is a consistent Voice.

This is what Indigenous activists really want - permanency. And this is why the Australian public should be very, very wary. Once you change the constitution, it will be incredibly difficult to unchange it.

Voice critics are not a bunch of right wing racist bigots. They include eminent Australians like constitutional lawyer Greg Craven who himself was on the committee designing the Voice but resigned when he realised the ultimate implications. They include people like former Labor Party President Warren Mundine and former Labor Party heavyweight Graham Richardson.

If even HALF of what they say about the Voice proves true, then it will be a disaster.

Why can a Voice not be legislated by an Act of Parliament, road tested, and if it's the best idea since the $30 billion we gave Indigenous organisations last year, then sure, stick it in the constitution.

But if it proves to be just another taxpayer funded body giving power to the big men of Indigenous tribes, we will thank God we weren't so easily emotionally manipulated to change our entire system of government in order to accomodate it.

But things have been so bad for Indigenous people. The Voice is the least we can do.

Arguments like this, no matter how sincere or heartfelt, have zero place in constitutional law. God forbid we reason with our emotions and think with our feelings.

 

[TennisPlayerAndy]

It's just an offer to listen. What's wrong with listenings?

The answer ... absolutely nothing. Nothing is wrong with listening.

But here's the better question: Why the need to change the constitution in order for the government to start listening to Indigenous people? The government can listen this afternoon if they wish!

We have 11 Indigenous MPs in Parliament. Does the government not listen to them?

We have an Indigenous Minister at the Cabinet table. Is she not listening? Isn't her job to travel to Indigenous communities and to liaise with Indigenous organisations and represent their thoughts back to government? She suddenly cannot hear anything without constitutional change?

Oh, but we need a body to listen to.

There are more than 1000 Indigenous bodies

Oh, but we need ONE body to listen to on behalf of ALL indigenous people.

That should be a big clue that something is amiss. One body will claim to speak for all indigenous people? How does that work? I suppose all Indigenous people think the same. What a racist assumption that is!

On the one hand we are told there are more than 300 'First Nations', all of whom will want individual treaties with the Australian Government, and on the other, that the Voice will be able to represent all of them.

Good luck with that. Highly respected indigenous voices Jacinta Price and Noel Pearson are completely at odds over the Voice.

And who will select these elite Aboriginals who will deem to speak on behalf of the rest? We don't know. Albanese says THAT detail will be worked out later. The design process of the Voice is set to begin six months AFTER the referendum.

Right. "Trust me, I'm a politician". If you trust that process, I have a bridge to sell you! DM me for details.

The reason we need a body in the constitution is that every time government changes, the goal posts move. The Voice will ensure that regardless of government, there is a consistent Voice.

This is what Indigenous activists really want - permanency. And this is why the Australian public should be very, very wary. Once you change the constitution, it will be incredibly difficult to unchange it.

Voice critics are not a bunch of right wing racist bigots. They include eminent Australians like constitutional lawyer Greg Craven who himself was on the committee designing the Voice but resigned when he realised the ultimate implications. They include people like former Labor Party President Warren Mundine and former Labor Party heavyweight Graham Richardson.

If even HALF of what they say about the Voice proves true, then it will be a disaster.

Why can a Voice not be legislated by an Act of Parliament, road tested, and if it's the best idea since the $30 billion we gave Indigenous organisations last year, then sure, stick it in the constitution.

But if it proves to be just another taxpayer funded body giving power to the big men of Indigenous tribes, we will thank God we weren't so easily emotionally manipulated to change our entire system of government in order to accomodate it.

But things have been so bad for Indigenous people. The Voice is the least we can do.

Arguments like this, no matter how sincere or heartfelt, have zero place in constitutional law. God forbid we reason with our emotions and think with our feelings.

Quality post.

There are people VOTED IN to the Parliament as representatives of their constituents.

Creating a further body seems absolutely ludicrous.

 

[ferball]

Mods please ban the word woke or wokism from this board.

Should change it to ewok!

 

[ferball]

So what is wokism then. Just to educate those who go on the attack. Its when big organisations , companies etc try and convince people to vote or agree to a certain way of life without deciding for themselves. They have their agendas and its a form of brainwashing . It has invaded society in recent years and is basically trying to change society overall. Change is good when it is done for the good but right now many decisions are being made that will change the way society exists and not for the better , thats when it is a major concern. Im not talking strictly about The Voice vote here as it needs to be carefully unpackaged but about many issues confronting society. I think you are a smart person and can work out what they are and Im not going to go on about them as I have better things to do, . What I will say is that everyone who votes NO will be classified as a racist you watch. Thats how wokism effects society. It actually divides and dosnt bring people together at all. I haven't decided which side I would vote for. If everyone treated everyone with respect and how they would want to be treated racism would never be an issue. Thats how I endeavour to treat people.

No it isn't.

Can we please have this discussion in the random thread. I'll argue about it all day but there are some posters here who are sick of seeing this in every thread.

 

[Hearts to hearts]

It's just an offer to listen. What's wrong with listenings?

The answer ... absolutely nothing. Nothing is wrong with listening.

But here's the better question: Why the need to change the constitution in order for the government to start listening to Indigenous people? The government can listen this afternoon if they wish!

We have 11 Indigenous MPs in Parliament. Does the government not listen to them?

We have an Indigenous Minister at the Cabinet table. Is she not listening? Isn't her job to travel to Indigenous communities and to liaise with Indigenous organisations and represent their thoughts back to government? She suddenly cannot hear anything without constitutional change?

Oh, but we need a body to listen to.

There are more than 1000 Indigenous bodies

Oh, but we need ONE body to listen to on behalf of ALL indigenous people.

That should be a big clue that something is amiss. One body will claim to speak for all indigenous people? How does that work? I suppose all Indigenous people think the same. What a racist assumption that is!

On the one hand we are told there are more than 300 'First Nations', all of whom will want individual treaties with the Australian Government, and on the other, that the Voice will be able to represent all of them.

Good luck with that. Highly respected indigenous voices Jacinta Price and Noel Pearson are completely at odds over the Voice.

And who will select these elite Aboriginals who will deem to speak on behalf of the rest? We don't know. Albanese says THAT detail will be worked out later. The design process of the Voice is set to begin six months AFTER the referendum.

Right. "Trust me, I'm a politician". If you trust that process, I have a bridge to sell you! DM me for details.

The reason we need a body in the constitution is that every time government changes, the goal posts move. The Voice will ensure that regardless of government, there is a consistent Voice.

This is what Indigenous activists really want - permanency. And this is why the Australian public should be very, very wary. Once you change the constitution, it will be incredibly difficult to unchange it.

Voice critics are not a bunch of right wing racist bigots. They include eminent Australians like constitutional lawyer Greg Craven who himself was on the committee designing the Voice but resigned when he realised the ultimate implications. They include people like former Labor Party President Warren Mundine and former Labor Party heavyweight Graham Richardson.

If even HALF of what they say about the Voice proves true, then it will be a disaster.

Why can a Voice not be legislated by an Act of Parliament, road tested, and if it's the best idea since the $30 billion we gave Indigenous organisations last year, then sure, stick it in the constitution.

But if it proves to be just another taxpayer funded body giving power to the big men of Indigenous tribes, we will thank God we weren't so easily emotionally manipulated to change our entire system of government in order to accomodate it.

But things have been so bad for Indigenous people. The Voice is the least we can do.

Arguments like this, no matter how sincere or heartfelt, have zero place in constitutional law. God forbid we reason with our emotions and think with our feelings.

You know there are a lot more eminent voices who have said there is no constitutional problem, of course - No has one guy, that it has to constantly name.

Yes, permanence for a voice. Not depending on the makeup of a particular parliament or the whims of any particular government.

And it won’t be a perfect reflection of the diverse population it is there to represent - neither is any level of government, but we make the best of it.

 

[ferball]

Cool. The conjugations apply too I guess?
I cangot a beer yesterday.
I'm cangetting one from the fridge... want one?
He cangets them for me.

So what happens if you're getting a stubby or long neck?

 

[ferball]

Woke in Fright.

Could be a movie about a fella that’s traumatised after being stuck in a broken down country town with a bloke that is obsessed with talking about Woke.
He later wakes up and realises that it was only a dream. He is, in fact, stuck in a broken down lift with Linda Hurley, the wife of the Gov-General, who insists on singing You Are My Sunshine until they are rescued. Unfortunately for our main character, she sings in door key and also has an unshakable belief in the value of her singing voice.

PotY

 

[ferball]

North Melbourne's support for the creation of a body within the constitution open only to people of a certain race is disappointing.

The constitution does not discriminate against Indigenous people. Indigenous people have the exact same rights as every other Australian. So there is no 'problem' within the constitution that requires fixing.

If the Voice is approved, as North Melbourne now publicly hopes, then discrimination - against non-indigenous people - will be written into the constitution. That is, there will be a body within the constitution of Australia open only to some Australians by virtue of their race.

This is morally wrong.

"But what about the wrongs Indigenous people have suffered?"

You don't fix one wrong by creating another wrong. Though people who allow emotion and sentiment to cloud good judgement will certainly try.

Everyone wants the best for Indigenous people. But wanting the best for Indigenous people is no excuse for failing to think.

North Melbourne should stick to football. It's what we do best, and let's be honest, we're not even that good at it.

The constitution does discriminate against indigenous people by its very existence.

 

[ferball]

I was wondering who would pick it up. You would have been short on fav I reckon.

It's completely legit if you're a weirdo who likes beer in cans.

 

[ferball]

For those who wanted a chaser after watching Carlton's misfortunes last night.

Former PwC boss Luke Sayers has questions to answer on tax scandal​

​

Spoiler: By Deborah O'Neill

May 26, 2023 — 3.29pm


Many Australians don’t read the financial sections of the papers or pay attention to the detail of what’s played out in a financial world so far away from their own family budgeting.

Let’s face it: there’s a whole economics-discourse gap that makes financial literacy a challenge, and not everyone is into the jargon or the detail. But even at such a distance from the financial service sector, knowledge of the scale of the ethical and moral failure at PwC is leaking into the broader community.

​

Finance secretary Jenny Wilkinson says the department was kept in the dark over the extent of the breaches of confidentiality by staff at PWC.
People know it’s something to do with tax and big tech companies not paying their fair share, and a bloke who took confidential information from Australian citizens and used it to make money.
When a senior partner at PwC, Peter Collins, signed three separate confidentiality agreements with the Australian government between 2013 and 2018, he knew what he was doing. He was inside the tent; he had access to confidential information about Australian tax laws being designed to ensure big multinationals pay their fair share of tax.

He sat in meetings with Australian Treasury officials and shared his considerable knowledge about tax law to assist in the effective design of Australian law. But then he went back to PwC Australia and PwC Global and – with the support of PwC colleagues in the US, UK, Singapore, Ireland, and Europe – unethically and collaboratively designed a scheme to profit himself, his colleagues and all the partners in the firm.

PwC attempted to enable major international companies, the names of which I intend to ensure are revealed, to avoid paying their fair share of tax. That is money straight from the pockets of hard-working Australians. The actions of PwC were a direct assault on our nation’s capacity to fund our schools, hospitals and public services – and in that way was a direct assault on every Australian citizen.

Let’s be clear about this: once Collins had the intelligence about what the Australian government was doing on the Multinational Anti-Avoidance Legislation (MAAL), he took it back to PwC to share with colleagues. And share it he did – far and wide across the PwC Australia and Global network. Together with others at PwC, Collins became the central cog in the machine being actively constructed inside PwC to turn confidential knowledge into a product for PwC to flog off to the same multinationals who were trying to minimise the amount of tax they pay in Australia.

The very first time that sharing of confidential material and insights was suggested was the moment PwC should have pounced on Collins and sacked him for multiple breaches of ethical boundaries. The moment of opportunity to do the right thing was lost. What occurred is matter of historical fact: there is a now public cache of communications between Collins and at least 53 different redacted PwC email addresses that fills 144 pages. It is truly shocking material.


A sample: “In total we expect (based on fee estimates that we have agreed with clients) that revenue from the first stage of the MAAL projects will be approximately $2.5 million.” That’s Collins in a PwC love-in that celebrated his deception and delighted in the anticipated flow of dollars into the PwC coffers.
Another: “Don’t circulate it beyond us or discuss it outside PwC – it would really put PwC Australia and me in a real bind.” Not only did Collins know he shouldn’t be sharing the confidential material with anyone, he knew it would be a big problem for everyone who facilitated the process he was leading. No one at PwC Australia or PwC Global stopped him.

Peter Collins, former international tax leader for PwC Australia.

The communications between PwC Australia and PwC Global extends from October 2014 to January 2017. In May 2016, so excited was PwC by the prospect of capturing the multinational tax avoidance market with the insider intel, it held a conference call for global tax partners.
Collins knew what he was doing. It breached the ethical and professional boundary he should have known and observed in spirit and practice. He was banned from practising for two years. But he was not alone and the emails he sent and received implicate many of his PwC colleagues.

All this occurred during the leadership in Australia of Luke Sayers, PwC’s then-CEO. He has questions to answer about the behaviour that took place on his watch. Tom Seymour, PwC’s head of tax at the time and later CEO of PwC Australia, has already stepped down. We’re told by PwC that he will retire in September, about the same time as the PwC internal review is expected to land. But what about all the others?

The Australian people deserve better from one of Australia’s biggest assurance companies. It’s time for PwC to face the music and to name the names of all involved. No delaying; no mucking around; no hiding any longer. Name the names. As the PwC saga continues, I think it’s time to call out the behaviour of a leadership team now in damage-control mode.

Deborah O’Neill is a Labor senator for NSW and chair of the Joint Standing Committee on Corporations and Financial Services.

Thanks for cangetting us that chaser.

 

[desie]

It's just an offer to listen. What's wrong with listenings?

The answer ... absolutely nothing. Nothing is wrong with listening.

But here's the better question: Why the need to change the constitution in order for the government to start listening to Indigenous people? The government can listen this afternoon if they wish!

We have 11 Indigenous MPs in Parliament. Does the government not listen to them?

We have an Indigenous Minister at the Cabinet table. Is she not listening? Isn't her job to travel to Indigenous communities and to liaise with Indigenous organisations and represent their thoughts back to government? She suddenly cannot hear anything without constitutional change?

Oh, but we need a body to listen to.

There are more than 1000 Indigenous bodies

Oh, but we need ONE body to listen to on behalf of ALL indigenous people.

That should be a big clue that something is amiss. One body will claim to speak for all indigenous people? How does that work? I suppose all Indigenous people think the same. What a racist assumption that is!

On the one hand we are told there are more than 300 'First Nations', all of whom will want individual treaties with the Australian Government, and on the other, that the Voice will be able to represent all of them.

Good luck with that. Highly respected indigenous voices Jacinta Price and Noel Pearson are completely at odds over the Voice.

And who will select these elite Aboriginals who will deem to speak on behalf of the rest? We don't know. Albanese says THAT detail will be worked out later. The design process of the Voice is set to begin six months AFTER the referendum.

Right. "Trust me, I'm a politician". If you trust that process, I have a bridge to sell you! DM me for details.

The reason we need a body in the constitution is that every time government changes, the goal posts move. The Voice will ensure that regardless of government, there is a consistent Voice.

This is what Indigenous activists really want - permanency. And this is why the Australian public should be very, very wary. Once you change the constitution, it will be incredibly difficult to unchange it.

Voice critics are not a bunch of right wing racist bigots. They include eminent Australians like constitutional lawyer Greg Craven who himself was on the committee designing the Voice but resigned when he realised the ultimate implications. They include people like former Labor Party President Warren Mundine and former Labor Party heavyweight Graham Richardson.

If even HALF of what they say about the Voice proves true, then it will be a disaster.

Why can a Voice not be legislated by an Act of Parliament, road tested, and if it's the best idea since the $30 billion we gave Indigenous organisations last year, then sure, stick it in the constitution.

But if it proves to be just another taxpayer funded body giving power to the big men of Indigenous tribes, we will thank God we weren't so easily emotionally manipulated to change our entire system of government in order to accomodate it.

But things have been so bad for Indigenous people. The Voice is the least we can do.

Arguments like this, no matter how sincere or heartfelt, have zero place in constitutional law. God forbid we reason with our emotions and think with our feelings.

If they’re convinced a Voice to parliament is going to produce real practical outcomes then it should have been legislated yesterday.

Instead what we have is a divisive referendum that, if it goes pear shaped, will set back the cause of reconciliation immeasurably.

 

[ferball]

If they’re convinced a Voice to parliament is going to produce real practical outcomes then it should have been legislated yesterday.

Instead what we have is a divisive referendum that, if it goes pear shaped, will set back the cause of reconciliation immeasurably.

Reconciliation has been dead for years. Probably couldn't do more to set it back if we tried.

 

[The acurate one]

Wow good news this voice thingy, am glad North are on to it.

Would be great if they let the Cohealth Kangaroos play a game on the Arden St Oval, a wonderful program. Not sure not wanting community members on the oval is a good thing.

I mean having it in tiptop condition hasn't helped us come match day.

4 Corners will film it, these folk have done it tough and turned their lives around. Not sure how that doesn't fit in with what we say we stand for.

 

[QueenslandRoo]

The constitution does discriminate against indigenous people by its very existence.

Well if your argument is that Australia, by definition, is illegitimate, then sure ... dismantle everything. And you go first. I'll let some of my Indigenous friends know that your land and property is theirs.

 

[ferball]

Well if your argument is that Australia, by definition, is illegitimate, then sure ... dismantle everything. And you go first. I'll let some of my Indigenous friends know that your land and property is theirs.

You've got indigenous friends have you?

Its not my argument by the way.

Its what the High Court of Australia found in 1992. If it was within the scope of the High Court to declare the constitution illegitimate it would have but it can't because its unconstitutional and because its a logical absurdity.

 

[DarkPhoenix]

How about that meeja

 

[disco_cowboy]

Well if your argument is that Australia, by definition, is illegitimate, then sure ... dismantle everything. And you go first. I'll let some of my Indigenous friends know that your land and property is theirs.

My brother in Christ, please save yourself the embarrassment.

 

[QueenslandRoo]

My brother in Christ, please save yourself the embarrassment.

Feel free to make an actual argument.

 

[Lomas]

How about that meeja

Cornes! Lol

 

[QueenslandRoo]

You've got indigenous friends have you?

Its not my argument by the way.

Its what the High Court of Australia found in 1992. If it was within the scope of the High Court to declare the constitution illegitimate it would have but it can't because its unconstitutional and because its a logical absurdity.

Like I said, if you agree that Indigenous peoples had rights to the land which existed before the British arrived, and that these rights should still exist today, have the courage of your convictions and hand everything over.

As for your cheap shot about "you've got indigenous friends have you" ... I do. And the overwhelming majority of them believe the worst thing to happen to Indigenous people is the welfare state.

 

[Lomas]

Like I said, if you agree that Indigenous peoples had rights to the land which existed before the British arrived, and that these rights should still exist today, have the courage of your convictions and hand everything over.

As for your cheap shot about "you've got indigenous friends have you" ... I do. And the overwhelming majority of them believe the worst thing to happen to Indigenous people is the welfare state.

Does anyone want to word this poor bloke up?

 

[DarkPhoenix]

Does anyone want to word this poor bloke up?

No, no.

Let's see how this plays out.

 

[disco_cowboy]

Feel free to make an actual argument.

If I did that, there would be two fools not just the one.