How much do you know about the Voice ?

I’ve made it a link, as well, because as it is it’s kinda teeny.

Here I am being disagreeable, right ? – wrong.

My first reaction when the Voice issue started being topical was that I was very pro. But I’ve changed my mind after reading a shitload of information like this piece that comes from the Financial Review.

I suggest you click on the small version up there of the article, and go read the legible version.

It ought to open your eyes.

22 thoughts on “How much do you know about the Voice ?

  1. I love your blog Margaret Rose. I don’t know if you are aware that, if my research is correct, Louise Clegg is married to Liberal politician, Angus Taylor.

    Liked by 1 person

    • I’m indeed flattered, Catherine, that you read and appreciate my ramblings !! :)
      I, too, detest Angus Taylor and everything he stands for; but does Louise’s being married to him mean she’s likely to be providing incorrect info. to us all ???


  2. But I only know about your politics because I had a huge crush on Barack Obama; otherwise I’d be just as ignorant as any Aussie. [grin]
    I inserted a link in the post (3rd par) so that you non-Australians could find out a bit about what’s going down ..


  3. Hmmm, I don’t feel that this is balanced reporting. It is Louise’s opinion piece Louise’s and her affiliation calls her perspective into question. And the emotive crash through phrase referring to the stuff ups in the Whitlam government.
    The voice is a starting point and people are generally afraid of change. What dangerous waters we may dip our toes in if 1% of the population gained control of their own country that we took from them. These fears of a stymied parliament sounds a bit like the Morrison Abbot years when nothing happened but we did survive that. A slow torturous legal process is something all lawyers know well.


  4. I agree with you completely Amanda. Paid journalistic opinion pieces are not evidential. “Follow the evidence” is a tried and true tenant of both law and science.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. If you’re concerned consider comparing with New Zealand and Canadian First Nations Peoples’ Constitutional involvement and wordings. I haven’t myself.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Ah listen, you Irish stirrer, you .. How dare you offer a possible solution about which you’re totally ignorant ?!! That is a very IRISH thing to do !!! [grin]


  6. I enjoyed reading the comments and your back and forth dialogue. I don’t completely understand the context of the article, but the greater point about balanced reporting is something I understand. I have recently stopped reading opinion pieces, at least for the most part. There are so few voices I even care to hear! I admire your fight! You haven’t given up, and I think perhaps I have–or I’m getting close!

    Liked by 1 person

    • Suffice it to say, dear Debra my beautiful friend, that what’s going down here is our new(ish) Government wanting to include in the Australian Constitution some wording to give our First Nation what’s being called “a voice” in Government. The issue raises strong feelings, as you’ve seen: and even though I’m not against it, I want the wording to be less open to being mucked about with.


Go on - you can say it. :)

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s