Comments by "ChineseKiwi" (@ChineseKiwi) on "Bloomberg Television" channel.

The argument that a voice would create inequality by inserting race into the constitution is not only disingenuous – it is also plain wrong. It is wrong because the Australian constitution already includes several provisions about race, one of which gives parliament the power to make laws for “the people of any race for whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws”. This is often referred to as the race power, and it makes Australia the only country that has empowered its federal parliament to make laws based on race. Aside from being incorrect, claims that a voice would create racial inequality are also disingenuous because they are not made in order to support greater equality in Australia. Denying Indigenous Australians a voice in decisions that affect them will only serve to maintain racial inequality and continue the marginalisation and disempowerment of First Nations people.
11
To note: This was rigged against it from the start due to the provision that 4 of the 6 states need to vote majority Yes. Read the following and dodge the obviously racist comments: "The argument that a voice would create inequality by inserting race into the constitution is not only disingenuous – it is also plain wrong. It is wrong because the Australian constitution already includes several provisions about race, one of which gives parliament the power to make laws for “the people of any race for whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws”. This is often referred to as the race power, and it makes Australia the only country that has empowered its federal parliament to make laws based on race. Aside from being incorrect, claims that a voice would create racial inequality are also disingenuous because they are not made in order to support greater equality in Australia. Denying Indigenous Australians a voice in decisions that affect them will only serve to maintain racial inequality and continue the marginalisation and disempowerment of First Nations people."
8
@alexgamble4718 you know nothing. It is literally the ‘socialism’ that makes Australian wages so much higher. This being strongly ‘enterprise bargaining agreements’ in Australia. Y’know the thing Jacinda re-introduced to NZ as ‘fair pay agreements’, and that the currently in power right wing government wants to get rid of again. Another is the 11.5% on top of wages Super (aka ‘KiwiSaver’ in NZ, 401 for the Americans), all employer contribution, unlike the best scenario net zero on (3% employer, 3% employee) contributions in NZ.
6
@johnthumble5154 One that lives in Australia but try again mate.
3
The argument that a voice would create inequality by inserting race into the constitution is not only disingenuous – it is also plain wrong. It is wrong because the Australian constitution already includes several provisions about race, one of which gives parliament the power to make laws for “the people of any race for whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws”. This is often referred to as the race power, and it makes Australia the only country that has empowered its federal parliament to make laws based on race. Aside from being incorrect, claims that a voice would create racial inequality are also disingenuous because they are not made in order to support greater equality in Australia. Denying Indigenous Australians a voice in decisions that affect them will only serve to maintain racial inequality and continue the marginalisation and disempowerment of First Nations people.
2
@BenBass00 only you know the lineage is quite small and only in one group of Aborigines. You ‘forgot’ about that.
1
@alexgamble4718 you know nothing. ‘Socialism’ is literally the reason why Australia has higher wages. That being enterprise bargaining agreements aka ‘fair pay agreements’ that Jacinda brought back after Muldoon got rid of them. Based on official Stats NZ statistics, this resulted in higher wage growth but your incoming government wants to get rid of them again. Also do you like 11.5% on top of wages, all employer contribution, towards your KiwiSaver like it is by default in Australia? - You voted on emotion and against your best interest didn’t you?
1
@alexgamble4718 you are clueless once again. An urban route bus driver gets paid 35% more *not including Super*, a first year Australian nurse or cop gets paid more than one with 5 years experience in New Zealand, I personally know a gal who is moving to Australia as she will get paid AU $114k + 11.5% Super/Kiwisaver (so converted in total NZ$139,000) vs the NZ $80k she was on (+ net zero KiwiSaver) She is in transport logistics. But go on pretending you know more than a person actually living in Australia like me 😂
1
@arclux if my name was ‘PinkBunny’, you wouldn’t say that. And why would a 50 Cent Army person name themselves this? 🤣 50 Cent logic from you. Get some logic or die tryin’
1
@arclux as opposed to the clowns like you slamming the Nos right? Get lost.
1
@arclux Enter 50c for more logic. I'm highly sure wumao (spell it right) would know a certain Curtis Jackson and their references. Maybe you'll find your logic in da club.
1
@arclux Maybe you'll find some logic in the candy shop too. Damn inflation, you can't find 50c lolly mixtures anymore. But I'm highly sure a wumao would know those Aussie/Kiwi childhood references eh.
1
At least this tinfoil is original, away from the usual WEF / WHO / NWO boogeymen 😂
1
WHO - the world health organisation. Do you even listen to your own logic?
1
@kurjan1 ok bro. Here's a question: Why do you think those who have actually exposed governments, like Assange and Snowden, get heavily targeted while your 'sources' don't? Federal police can take down underground criminal networks spanning multiple countries but not your 'sources' or their videos / social media posts? - All those 'sources' want is your views and money. They don't actually believe what they say. And why would they expose themselves to your dumb arse when they can make far more money selling those secrets to foreign governments? You have thought about all of this right?
1
@rof8200 only this is literally wrong if you have bothered to look into New Zealand and the United States. You’ll be the first one to buy into one of the housing development Māori iwi (tribe) have developed with their compensated formerly Crown land and to shop at their shopping malls. Yeah, ‘victims’ eh. You know nothing. Less BS propaganda
1
@KatharineShaw-z8u whataboutism 101
1
@johnthumble5154 Kiwi citizen mate. Doesn’t change anything regarding this.
1
@Antechynus mate, it was rigged from the start eh. In reality, this was more to do with pure racism by many in reality. Stop hiding because ‘omg division’ because no one is buying that. As stated, at least the far right have the balls to be open about it.
1
@Antechynus Aldo based upon your subs. Even she thinks the Liberals are a joke, but has to shut up about it for her career. 🤣 Chandler described the party's engagement with women as "sobering",[5]
1
@Antechynus Also many on the right don’t actually believe what they say, they only do it for power, views, money and career. You’re being fooled eh. Remember, John Howard wanted to get rid of your penalty rates and Super in the late 90s. All Fox News staff had to be double vaccinated while they pushed the opposite and emails handed over as part of the discovery process in the Dominion voter booth case stated really all Fox News (and thus organisations like Sky News) care about is ad revenue and not what they actually say. Why do you think Sky News fired Alan Jones and Mark Latham? They threatened the ad revenue. Unfortunately, you’re being played.
1