TOPIC:

He is still going on about 'life expectancy gaps'. The PM does not seem to realise that there is a big life expectancy gap between men and women. Will he have a referendum on that?

Life expectancy is a lot worse due to smoking and heavy drinking per capita being a lot higher, then there are higher violence rates as well. These are all personal responsibility issues.

Yes, this is even more true for the population whom live in the outback, no settlers make them live in the bush. The point is, that the government cannot make life outcomes equal. Plenty of Anglo-Saxons are poor Mr Albanese. He is a Marxist trying to wreck our constitution. If it was really about helping Aboriginals, as you said Baz, he could just lower the taxers on booze and smokes. The less badly addicted, in particular, should have better life outcomes. 

Here we go, Woodside Scarboro Exploration has just been shut down....

Another reason to Vote No.

Spot on Baz. One woman has been able to shut down the project by going to the Federal Court and claiming she wasn't consulted. There's your Voice in a nutshell. It will be mayhem with all the indigenous clans, groups, mobs and so on going to court because they weren't consulted on various pieces of legislation before parliament. Worst case scenario sees Government grinding to a halt in no time.

Well here's one for you. Aboriginal groups were consulted on the Abernethy Road extension through to Lloyd St Midland which will be elevated over the GTE Hwy bypass. They were happy with it and signed off on it only to later change their mind claiming they were pressured into agreeing with it.

Claiming there is some sort of billabong or rock shelter that will be disturbed. I haven't noticed much works there for a while so maybe it's come to a halt.

Bazza wrote:

Here we go, Woodside Scarboro Exploration has just been shut down....


Another reason to Vote No.

Garbage Bazz , Woodside decision got nothing to do with the Voice? 
 

Maybe not Dwert, but is it a sign of things to come? It's my understanding the chairperson of a particular indigenous organisation appealed to the federal court that she wasn't consulted on the project even though Woodside held dozens of meetings will local groups, organisations and individuals. The federal court allowed her appeal and the project is now temporarily shut down.

What happens if the Voice gets up and a group does likewise and appeals to the High Court they should have been consulted and that particular piece of legislation gets held up? This is one of my main concerns that the wheels of government could grind to a halt due to on-going litigation by aggrieved indigenous groups.

You can't say it won't happen as everyone has the right to seek leave to go to the HC so potentially, important legislation like supply could in theory be stuck in parliament until the legal process runs its course.

BC wrote:

Maybe not Dwert, but is it a sign of things to come? It's my understanding the chairperson of a particular indigenous organisation appealed to the federal court that she wasn't consulted on the project even though Woodside held dozens of meetings will local groups, organisations and individuals. The federal court allowed her appeal and the project is now temporarily shut down.

What happens if the Voice gets up and a group does likewise and appeals to the High Court they should have been consulted and that particular piece of legislation gets held up? This is one of my main concerns that the wheels of government could grind to a halt due to on-going litigation by aggrieved indigenous groups.

You can't say it won't happen as everyone has the right to seek leave to go to the HC so potentially, important legislation like supply could in theory be stuck in parliament until the legal process runs its course.


Quote taken from an AFR article on decision, no relevence to the voice..Woodside said in September that the conditions on consultation had since been met, and  it intended to start the work.  But Ms Cooper obtained an injunction preventing any work going ahead before the hearing of her appeal. Woodside’s 1196-page environment plan for the seismic survey includes a record of its consultation and attempted consultation with Save Our Songlines, a group co-founded by Ms Cooper, and consultation with Murujuga Aboriginal Corporation, where Ms Cooper is a previous director.But the decision from Justice Colvin finds that NOPSEMA “did not have statutory power to make the decision to accept the environment plan on the stated conditions in circumstances where it was not reasonably satisfied that the consultation required ... had not been undertaken”.A spokeswoman for Woodside noted the court ruling. “We will continue to work with NOPSEMA to have an accepted [environmental plan] in place before commencing the seismic survey,” she said, adding the decision “did not in any way criticise any action by Woodside”.NOPSEMA said it was reviewing the reasons for the decision to ensure future regulatory actions complied with it.Brendan Dobbie, managing director of the Environmental Defenders Office, described the ruling as “a fantastic outcome for our client, and the whole community, that has affirmed the need for proper consultation to take place before approvals are granted in offshore developments”.“NOPSEMA should never have accepted Woodside Energy’s Environment Plan, knowing these requirements had not yet been met,” he said.Ms Cooper said she was “elated” by the decision, which was important for her people and their history. “Woodside just came and told us what was happening,” she said. “They never bothered to sit down and listen to Murujuga traditional custodians about the full impacts of their Burrup Hub operations on our culture and our sacred songlines.”The Scarborough project involves the development of an offshore field, where  Woodside is partnered by Japan’s Sojitz Corporation and Sumitomo Corporation , and the expansion of the onshore Pluto LNG plant near Karratha, in which Global Infrastructure Partners is investing.Several secondary environmental approvals from NOPSEMA are still outstanding for the project,  posing a risk of a delay to the start-up of LNG exports to Asia . Citigroup is already assuming a six-month delay to the 2026 date for the first LNG cargo being delivered.King & Wood Mallesons partner Scott Singleton said the ruling provides clarity that consultations must take place before an environmental plan is submitted to the regulator for approval. “Effectively, the court said the process can’t condone kicking the can down the road on consultation, as that would preclude the necessary evaluative judgment being carried out by the regulator at the point of approving the environment plan,” he said.



 

 

Pretty disappointed with the Federal Government,on this Voice.
If people are unsure they will vote no.
Terrible selling of the Yes Vote.We need to know what powers this advisory committee has.
We dont want a RSA dogs breakfast in AU.