Comments by "John Woodrow" (@johnwoodrow8769) on "Voice to Parliament detail ‘will be there for all to see’: Albanese" video.

How can Australia have a civilised debate on The Voice when comments critical of the detail (no offensive comments) get immediately deleted by the YouTube censor.
9
@buildmotosykletist1987 So you believe him? I watched the whole interview on replay last night. Albanese didn't give a straight or honest answer to a single question put to him, no matter the subject. He knows EXACTLY what is being proposed. The reason he wants to pretend he doesn't is because that allows him to avoid questions on the detail. And the current model is so obviously flawed there and a zillion questions to be answered.
4
@info88w11 I watched the whole interview on Sky last night. No matter the question that Albanese was asked, no matter the topic, the bloke didn't get a straight answer to a single one. Just stuck to his 'talking points' no matter how irrelevant they were to the actual question. He was being incredibly insulting to the intelligence of anyone watching.
3
@Wasabitheband1 I'm old enough to remember the 1967 referendum quite well. There was next to zero controversy and 91% of Australians voted to make Aboriginal rights the exact same as all other Australian citizens. Fifty-six years ago, at a time when certainly older Australians were 'ultra conservative' virtually everyone was onboard there should be no differences between Australians based on race.
2
@buildmotosykletist1987 What he actually said in the interview was there is a LOT of detail already out there, and specifically referred to the Langton/Wyatt co-design reports. He also said the final design will be undertaken by aboriginal people. Put those two statements together and there is no way on earth he would significant change the design those aboriginal co-design groups have spent months/years developing. To do so would be seen as just another white fella taking over. He knows EXACTLY what it will be, playing dumb and never answering a question is second nature to the man.
2
@farangutan6773 Albanese has neither the intelligence or honesty to answer difficult questions. This is my honest assessment. His $275 power bill promise to get elected knowing full well it could never be achieved clearly demonstrated his dishonesty. And that he NEVER discusses anything to do with federal finances proves his limited intellectual ability.
2
@farangutan6773 Albanese wasn't chosen by the people to be PM, Scott Morrison was rejected. Albanese is the Joe Biden of Australian politics.
2
If Albanese thinks its such a great idea he should just legislate it without a referendum. If it proves to be a success after a decent period of time, then think about putting it to the Australian public for inclusion in the referendum. They will have had time to properly evaluate the effectiveness or otherwise and can so make a truly informed decision. The only reason a referendum and inclusion in The Constitution is going to be attempted is so 'the voice' can never be disbanded.
1
The CLR model IS the model for The Voice. There is zero chance that work would be thrown out and something different imposed. And the reason Albanese remains vague about the CLR model is because it is HIGHLY flawed and open to criticism. For example, there won't be any problem deciding who is a qualifying aboriginal, because none of the 24 national voice members will be elected, they are all 'appointed'. And as the reginal voice structures are all free to decide their own memberships, expect all them to be 'appointed' as well.
1
@positivepawpaw7564 It's not even necessary to get into "all the detail". Just some minor detail, like how EXACTLY will 'the voice' be effective in addressing violence or substance in remote communities? A bit of trivial stuff like that would be useful.
1
The 1999 Republic referendum didn't fail because people were given excessive detail. It simply failed because those wanting a republic were unable to (a) agree upon a model for the republic, and (b) articulate what advantage there would be in making the change i.e. 'if it aren't broke'. It was the lack of detail that caused it to fail, not excess information. The current 'debate' on the Voice is currently tracking the exact same way as the 1999 referendum, and as time progresses it does seem more likely to be heading for the same result.
1