octave

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-16/fact-check-jacinta-nampijinpa-price-secret-documents-niaa/102485040

Red I have not specifically talked about the treaty in NZ. The point I have been making is that the argument that the voice will make us into a divided society seems unlikely since New Zealand has various arrangements and they are not a bitterly divided society. How do I know? My son who moved to NZ 14 years ago and recently became a citizen. He is visiting at the moment and he would like to assure you that NZ is a good place to live. No one is trying to take his land or anything. There are plenty of other countries with various arrangements and the wheels aren't falling off. When ATSIC came into being did your life get worse? When ATSIC was abolished did your life suddenly improve? The voice will more than likely fail In my view this will be internationally embarrassing.

Good luck with that. Warren Mundine says that he believes a no vote will allow a push for a treaty. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/sep/17/split-emerges-in-no-campaign-as-mundine-says-opposing-voice-makes-treaties-more-likely

Paranoid Trumpian BS. I would like to respect all no voters but there seems to be some crazy people out there https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-10-09/voice-referendum-cross-of-remembrance-vandalised-victor-harbor/102950232

Would never have got it without your clue.

Charlton Heston?

Donald Trump Gets McDonald's Delivered To Court During Civil Fraud Trial

Imagine if Sky News had to account for the balance of their content. ABC, battered by criticism, tracks Voice coverage down to the second

I listen to a lot of ABC radio and I have heard interviews with all the leading Yes and No people. Insiders alternate their guests. Last week was an interview with Warren Mundine. This is a hell of a lot more balanced than Sky News or News corp.

I don't think I have seen any Yes posters with the AEC logo on it. A quick search doesn't yield examples as far as I can see, unless the logo is tiny or on the back or something. If there are Yes or No posters with the AEC logo on I am not convinced it would sway anyone either way. https://www.google.com/search?q=vote+yes+posters+the+voice&tbm=isch&ved=2ahUKEwi5taK5z92BAxX9a2wGHaV5DF0Q2-cCegQIABAA&oq=vote+yes+posters+the+voice&gs_lcp=CgNpbWcQDDoECCMQJ1CvCVivCWC3GWgAcAB4AIABkQGIAZ8CkgEDMC4ymAEAoAEBqgELZ3dzLXdpei1pbWfAAQE&sclient=img&ei=MP8dZbndOf3XseMPpfOx6AU&bih=1025&biw=2133&rlz=1C1CHZO_enAU915AU915

Here's the facts about multiple voting - it is negligible in Australia https://www.6newsau.com/post/here-s-the-facts-about-multiple-voting-it-is-negligible-in-australia Updated: 10 hours ago An AEC tweet has sparked discussion about people voting multiple times in the Voice referendum. A tweet from the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) about the possibility of multiple voting at the Voice to Parliament referendum has sparked discussion and some false claims on social media. "If someone votes at two different polling places within their electorate, and places their formal vote in the ballot box at each polling place, their vote is counted," the AEC said. The AEC provided initial context in the replies, however only one of their tweets has widely spread, missing important context. Their website has additional information on the specifics around multiple voting. Here's the facts: Multiple voting is illegal, and previous elections have shown it is negligible in Australia. Just 0.03% of the 91.9% turnout for the 2019 federal election were multiple mark-offs, and following the 2013 federal election, 2,000 people admitted to voting twice - just 0.014% of the total votes. (It goes without saying that this is not about someone voting in the House of Representatives and then in the Senate at the same time). As then-Acting Electoral Commissioner Tom Rogers (who is now the Electoral Commissioner) told a Senate committee in 2013, "the greater majority of those, over 81 per cent" were elderly, had poor literacy skills, or had a "low comprehension of the electoral process". Psephologist Dr Kevin Bonham, who has also previously scrutineered at multiple elections before, estimates multiple votes "might be something like [very roughly] 0.01%". "Many apparent multiple votes are clerical errors...of the remainder, the vast majority are unintentional - usually voters with issues such as senility or confusion about the process," he said on Twitter. When voting, polling booth workers will ask all voters for their full name, address, and whether they’ve voted before in the election. If voters answer 'no' to the third question, their names are marked off the electoral roll, they receive their ballot papers and are then able to vote. Immediately following any election, or referendum, the AEC will digitally cross-reference the electoral rolls against certified electoral lists (an electronic list of eligible electors) to check if there are multiple marks against names. The AEC will then contact anyone suspected of voting more than once to get information of when, where and if they voted. 6 News has contacted the AEC, who confirmed this is the process for both elections and referendums. The AEC has again confirmed today: "The instances of multiple marks have never been of a significant volume and never more than the margin in an election. We have electronic certified lists across all pre-polls and continuing to many on-the-day polling places with real-time mark-off of the roll." The electoral commission can, and has previously, referred cases of multiple voting to the Australian Federal Police, with imprisonment possible. "Multiple voting under the Electoral Act or the Referendum Act may take the form of a person voting more than once under their own name. For example, where a person attends more than one polling place on election day or votes more than once using early or postal voting. 20," the AEC website says. "Multiple voting may also be voting more than once by both voting in their own name, and also voting in the name of another person or persons. For example, in addition to casting their own vote, a person may go to a polling place, claim to be another person whom they know is on the roll for that division, have that person’s name marked off the certified list, and cast another vote."

So this is no different from any other election? I would imagine that to materially change the result many people would have to vote more than once, especially in a simple binary choice It is more relevant in an election where a seat may only have 100000 voters. It would take great commitment given the penalties. 12. Are there penalties for illegal voting? Yes – up to $6600 fine and/or two years imprisonment. Although with anonymous ballots it would be impossible to weed out multiple voter's votes it would probably be possible to ascertain if enough multiple votes had been cast to change the outcome. This is not a new issue though, is it? It is the same as any other election. My fear is that we are starting to drift down the Trumpian road of crying "rigged election" If as I expect the no-vote wins, I may be annoyed about obvious false advertising but I will certainly accept the result as I do with every other election.

We had a house built in 1990 (NSW) and the builder went into liquidation. We were covered for the cost of completing the house. I can't remember the name of the scheme back then but in NSW it is now called Home Building Compensation Fund (HBCF) In our case the house was 75% finished so we got our owner builders licence and finished it ourselves and ended up financially slightly ahead. It did cause delays but nothing too drastic. DEALING WITH A BUILDER’S BANKRUPTCY: YOUR ACTION PLAN

What evidence do you have?

I think there are many countries that are more progressive than us that are also stable. Many Scandinavian countries are much more progressive than we are and they don't seem to be unstable. My son moved to NZ 9 years ago. Despite the fact that he had all the rights and benefits of any other Kiwi (after a couple of years) last year he became a New Zealand citizen. He did this for several reasons but one of the reasons was that he feels NZ is a lot like Aus but just a little more progressive. Whilst there are still many social problems with regard to the indigenous peoples there is a least more acknowledgment of its past. My son says that he feels more comfortable in a country that is at least a little further down the road of reconciliation. Of course, all change does involve some risk but also reward. My life would have been safe but boring had I not taken some risks. In the case of the Voice, I don't think the risk is high and certainly, it is difficult to find examples of countries that have enacted similar systems to the Voice that have suffered overly negative consequences. If as some of the no folks say it will be divisive then it makes me think that perhaps we are less cohesive than Canadians the Fins, Norwegians, Kiwis, etc.

Yes, I am not particularly interested in far-right commentary.

Firstly it was just an example of saying "Unless it is perfect, don't do it", and secondly, there are some very wealthy people who have businesses that on paper make a loss. This qualifies them for things like low-income health care cards. I seem to remember a news story about how many seemingly wealthy people are actually getting low-income healthcare cards because their businesses appear to make little profit. We know this is also true of the wealthy folk paying little tax because they claim to make little profit. In terms of the aged pension, there are ways and means. Yes, ‘millionaires’ can qualify for the age pension By the way as an aged pensioner, you can earn a reasonable amount. under the work bonus system. https://www.dss.gov.au/seniors/programmes-services/work-bonus#:~:text=From 1 July 2023%2C the,the maximum rate of pension. The Work Bonus increases the amount an eligible pensioner can earn from work before it affects their pension rate. The first $300 of fortnightly income from work is not counted under the pension income test. The Work Bonus operates in addition to the pension income free area. From 1 July 2023, the pension income free area is $204 a fortnight for single pensioners, and for couples combined, it is $360 a fortnight. This means a single pensioner over Age Pension age with no other private income could earn up to $504 a fortnight from work and still receive the maximum rate of pension.

Apologies if this was an inappropriate post. It is not intended to have a go at anyone. When I read it the number leapt out at me. As a joke, the numbers don't matter and could be anything.

It could be amusing and accurate and make a valid point.

Sorry to be pedantic but this figure is wildly incorrect.

I don't see that between the adviser and the advisee, there is much room for corruption. I suspect that corruption is more likely to occur in the implementation rather than in the act of providing advice that can be accepted or rejected by the government of the day. Corruption and misappropriation are common in most areas of government. There are people who hide their income in order to get an aged pension that they are not entitled to but we ought to work on fixing those problems rather than abolishing the aged pension.

I did not say an improvement of 5% I said a 5% chance of improvement. The odds of some good being done not the amount of good being done.

That being so it seems like a low-risk gamble. If there is a 5% chance of some kind of improvement and little risk of negative consequences then why not? If the voice does not lead to any improvement then "no " voters and others will have the luxury of being able to say "We put you in the driver's seat and you did not improve anything, there is nothing more we can do" Internationally we can also say to countries critical of us that we tried our best. A question, If after a couple of years, the South Australian voice starts to improve things would you change your mind?

I am not sure about that. During the same podcast, Ms White alleged that the Voice would end up "taking over" Parliament and abolishing it. "You can call me a conspiracy theorist if you like," she said. "But I know the way that these people work and that is what will end up happening. Aboriginal people will be running this country and all the white people here will be paying to live here." https://www.sbs.com.au/nitv/article/deeply-hurtful-this-no-campaigner-labelled-the-stolen-generation-as-mistruth/lbruqnqnk This does not seem moderate to me. Is this what "No " supporters here believe? Has this happened in Canada? New Zealand? Norway? Finland? No supporters that I have talked to seem unaware that South Australia has legislated a state-based voice with elections on March 16, 2024. Will this lead to dire predictions of the no-case coming to pass? https://www.agd.sa.gov.au/first-nations-voice I guess time will tell. Other countries seem to manage various arrangements. Although these countries still have their problems it is hard to find a country that has as poor outcomes as we do.