It's a shame the lefties and activities don't spend time debating, let alone protesting, the overwhelming crimes by aboriginals on each other. It such a sad state of affairs when politics by these loonies and lefty media prevails.

So true paulc.  These sad people are more interested in appearing virtuous and woke than solving real problems. 

The BLM protests are based entirely on virtue signalling and appearing sufficiently woke. There is no problem with indigenous deaths in custody, as indigenous people are now less likely than non-Indigenous people to die in prison custody (https://aic.gov.au/publications/sb/sb17). Dealing with the real issues endemic to the aboriginal community - domestic violence, alcohol addiction, child abuse, unemployment - is tough, and it isn't sexy like posting a picture of yourself screaming ACAB at a cop of Instagram. 

It's also a massive kick in the teeth to everyone that lost their job, business or relationship as a result of the lockdown. It's a massive middle finger to the people who had to cancel weddings, missed babies being born, and even those who were unable to attend the funerals of their grandparents. Utterly self-indulgent and shameful behaviour. 

From what I could see of that study, it seems that its stats are based on how many deaths proportionate to the prison population, rather than the overall population. So while there are fewer deaths proportionately than non-indigenous prisoners, we need to fix the things that are landing a higher proportion of indigenous people in the slammer in the first place. As you say, not as easy.

Somyurek sacked straight away, probably booted from the ALP as well.

Refreshing to see Politicians get the boot when they should, wish other political parties would do the same when open corruption is aired.

-PB

Yep no tolerance for that garbage. Shining light on this sort of thing is the best disinfectant.

Whenever it's the Libs do it you get Murdoch columnists running interference and playing it down.

Dan Andrews is one of the rare breed who'll actually do something   unlike scomo who ignore the sports roots.  Angus Taylor et el

First and foremost we need to establish a suitably resourced Federal ICAC - able to look at all jurisdictions. It needs to be able to look at retrospective transgressions with nobody exempt from scrutiny. I would suggest 3 commissioners that could act singularly, or in cases of review as a panel.

The Federal ICAC Commissioners should be approved by a 75% majority of a dual sitting of both Houses of Parliament for a fixed term of 5 years with a maximum tenure of 10 years. Justice Michael Kirby and Justice Murray Gleeson are both of the calibre of the person that I would suggest for these positions (though their age would probably preclude them at this stage).

Anyone should be able to refer any matter to the Federal ICAC but it would be the Federal ICAC Commissioners prerogative to see if there was merit in pursuing each matter or referring it to a more appropriate jurisdiction. The Federal ICAC would be free to instigate their own investigations.

In 200 years this, what to do, will still be being debated.

That and the Israel Palestine thing.  

They'll never end.

In the USA African Americans and Hispanics make up almost 30% of the population. If they chose to vote (not just for president but right down to the local stuff) there could be widespread changes very quickly there. I know there is voter suppression rife there but half the suppression is because people think nothing can change. 

In Australia, the Indigenous population is a much lower percentage and doesn't have the political clout. 

I see QLD LNP is already to cannibalize itself before an election again lol

Never learn.

-PB

Deputy PM slugging the taxpayer to go to the Melbourne Cup.

Remember when we sacked politicians over bottles of wine?

-PB

And yet the msm ignore it

https://www.reddit.com/r/australia/comments/hb5flx/what_are_the_blm_protesters_in_australia_trying/

interesting thread

With Greg Clarke from FIFA voting for the Colombia bid for the 2023 Women's World Cup, I find it fair to say he was representing both the English FA as well as government in making this vote. 

Is it fair to ignite Australia's Republican move away from the monarchy based off this? Our governing nation has voted against our sporting, tourism, infrastructure and general vested interests of both our nation + NZ. I consider this grounds for certifiable outrage. We regularly remind ourselves of how we needed the Sydney Olympics in order to bring ourselves into the new generation, so I don't find it a stretch to say England voting against us hosting a football World Cup is them voting against our nations moving forward. 

I don't know if it will ignite the republican movement but I'm already onboard. 

I'm all for a republic but I think we should be focusing on more pressing issues right now rather than minting some new coins with President Peter Fitzsimmons on them. 

Ordinarily love you work but respectfully disagree.  There'll never be a 'right' time for this.  They just need to get on with it.  You can chew gum and walk at the same time.

Neither NZ nor Canada has this inferiority complex when it comes to being a constitutional monarchy with the British monarch as sovereign.

Staggering that so many Aussies get their knickers in a knot over this.

Almost all the most balanced countries in the world are constitutional monarchies (in roughly this order); Canada, NZ, Australia, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, the Netherlands and Japan.

We’re in good company. The Queen has no Royal Prerogative in Australia, that means she  (and the UK Government) has ZERO power in Australia. By accident (not design), Australia has one of the most stable political systems on the planet.

But people with anti-British chips on their shoulders want to throw that away to be like the US. Ludicrous.

Besides, its questionable as to whether it’s constitutionally possible for Australia to become a republic in the first place. Being a republic would mean that Australia, it’s states and territories derive many legal documents (with constitutional significance) from a foreign, alien power.

Peter FitzSimons, and plenty of others, would do better to focus on safeguarding human rights in Australia.

Despite signing it, Australia is the ONLY democracy on the planet which has not yet incorporated the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) into either statutory law (like NZ) or, better yet, the constitution, through a Bill of Rights (like Canada).

This means that the courts do not need to interpret statutory law or case law through the prism of international standard human rights treaties (from the UN). NB- we still have human rights through Common Law and statutory law, but they aren't safeguarded in the robust manner that human rights are safeguarded elsewhere in the world.

However strong the legislative and executive arms of our system are, our judicial system is pissweak. Individual human rights can be violated by the state without legal recourse.

For argument's sake, an ex-intelligence services whistleblower could be prosecuted by the government entirely in secret because they had embarrassed a previous government, simply by revealing that that government had done the wrong thing. Oh and that whistleblower's barrister could also be prosecuted.

We should be like Canada - a wonderful, multicultural, modern Commonwealth Realm and constitutional monarchy which constitutionally enshrines individual human rights.

But a republic rah rah rah.

With respect pv4, I recommend reading Australia's constitution. Your post illustrates a huge misunderstanding of how our political system functions - and of the Anglo-Australian Relationship.

https://www.aph.gov.au/about_parliament/senate/powers_practice_n_procedures/constitution

The UK is not Australia's 'governing nation'.

The UK Government has ZERO political power in Australia. The UK and Australia share the same monarch; that's the extent of the governmental connection. The analogy - there's a parent and two adult children; the children are siblings (and grown-up). One sibling is not the parent or guardian of the other sibling.

In fact, where the UK Government is consulted as regards monarchy issues, the Australian Government must also agree for it to go ahead. E.g. the British Act of Parliament, the Succession to the Crown Act 2013 required Julia Gillard's and Australian Parliament's agreement in order to proceed.

Queen Elizabeth II is Queen of Australia (entirely distinct from Queen of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland). And even then, the Queen has no Royal Prerogative in Australia. The Queen exercises no power in Australia.

She can't even approve or reject bills which have come through Australian Parliament. Her representative, the Governor-General, does this. The Australian Constitution draws a distinction between the office (and person) of the Governor-General and the Monarch. The ONLY thing that the Queen can do, in theory, is to sack the Governor-General. And convention renders this impossible. So, in real terms, the Queen has less power in Australian politics than a Sudanese refugee in Broadmeadows who has, finally, gained Australian citizenship. At least that person can vote

In terms of the FA, it votes as part of a bloc (UEFA) - that informed their decision. It's not to slight Australia.

Anglo-Australian relations have always been strong, despite slight frostiness when the UK joined the Common Market. Post-Brexit, Australia and the UK will probably work even more closely together.

Monarchists are the pits.

What's your qualifications Liz? 

Well I was born into it.

Is that it?

Pretty much....Well I do also come from a long line of incestuous, inbred, halfwit foreigners.

Uh huh.

Well you can't can you?  No one dares open their mouth any more lest they be labelled as 'speaking from a position of privilege' or worse, accused of being a racist.

I'm at the point these days of thinking they can sort it out themselves.  Piss poor I know.  

Steady on- no need to vilify foreigners ;)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t2c-X8HiBng
(dunno how to embed videos, this is from Monty Python and the Holy Grail)

I take your point, though. Having a monarch defies logic. But c'est la vie. It's not about the Queen ruling over people. She's entirely a powerless figurehead whose presence simply balances out competing interests by allowing their power to be adequately checked and balanced without gaining any actual power herself. We lose nothing and (excluding judiciary) have one of the best systems in the world.

This doesn't seem to bother Canada, NZ, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, the Netherlands or Japan. Why do Aussies chuck such a tanty over this.

Why not focus on the human rights violations that occur in Australia? And on the system (or lack thereof) which enables those violations to occur? Don't you think that would be a better use of your energy, Munrubenmuz?

As above.  You can walk AND chew gum at the same time.

quickflick, very valid posts and pretty much agree.
Its not a priority nor a need nor a National issue, just a mental struggle for some.
Just seeing that idiot Fitzsimmons name makes me puke, a nothing person needing to make a headline, I've said that walking and chewing at the same time :)

$270 BILLION on defence. 🤦‍♂️ 

Why, because of a fear of China. Futile as well we will never be able to match them. A better investment would be in diplomacy and dialogue. Also why is there not a murmur about the cost involved when it is multiples of what we will be paying for the Covid 19 response that everyone is gnashing their teeth over.

Our F-35s will be useless - already able to be be picked off by low cost drones - but we will continue to purchase them, why?

The spending is skewed to buy over-hyped under-delivering big boy toys from American mutli-nationals that pay little or no tax here. The focus needs to change to defensive gear like drones, cyber-security hardening, defence against chemical and biological weapons, We are spending increasingly more for technologies over long periods of time that are being bypassed before they are delivered. We need to be spending in the right areas and increasing our diplomatic and foreign aid budgets.

This is how the USSR broke up - trying to outspend the US on military hardware. We are spending an inordinate amount on defence in stupid ways, while cutting taxs and every other department.

I'v have complained over the last 25 years we have become an economy - not a society. We have trashed our society - now we are going out of our way to trash our economy.

I just want my fudging robodebt back already

Defence spending is 2% of GDP.  My understanding is this is within that.  https://interactives.lowyinstitute.org/features/australia-votes-2019/issues/defence-spending/#:~:text=The%202019%E2%80%9320%20budget%20provides,equivalent%20to%201.9%25%20of%20GDP.&text=Both%20major%20parties%20have%20committed,was%20at%201.59%25%20of%20GDP.

Also my understanding is the government is well aware that they could never beat China in any full scale war but given that they are banking on making the cost of a war too costly (from their point of view) with regards weaponry and lives that would need to be expended.

Also 100 % agree with your penultimate sentence.