Paul Chappell

@ScoMo30 What do they say about the friends you hang around with?

Was pleased to meet with former President Donald Trump on Tuesday night at his private residence in NY. It was nice to catch up again, especially given the pile on he is currently dealing with in the US. Was also a good opportunity to discuss AUKUS, which received a warm reception. We also discussed the continuing assertions of China in the Indo-Pacific and the threats against Taiwan. These were issues we discussed regularly when we were both in office. Once again, the former President showed his true appreciation of the value he places on the Australia-US alliance and the shared role of supporting what our friend, Shinzo Abe, called a free and open Indo-Pacific. Good to see you DJT and thanks for the invitation to stay in touch. All the best.

In light of the exposè on #Coles and #Woolworths this week, I’ll be removing all superlatives and referring to them simply as ‘markets’ #ColesWorth

@SenatorRennick Funny thing is, as science progresses so does our understanding of natural history. That you were told different timelines as a child doesn’t prove science wrong, it proves you’re incapable of changing entrenched views. Much like a racist.

Earlier this year I gave a speech in the chamber saying there was no evidence that Aborigines had been in Australia for 60,000 years. Needless to say the ABC fact checked me by quoting a heap of overpaid academics to saying that it’s not disputed that Homo Sapiens had been in Australia for that long. Not one of them produced any DNA evidence to prove that. It’s a vibe thing when it comes to the ABC and Academia. #auspol

Truth-telling is almost impossible for Indigenous Australians with a media industry more and more comfortable with propagating lies and misinformation theconversation.com/how-did-the-me…

Anyone who voted No because of the threat to our constitution and democracy has no place to complain about the cost of the referendum because that is the price of our constitution and democracy in action. #Referendum2023 #Auspol2023 #VoiceToParliament

Vote YES for a better tomorrow #voicetoparliament #referendum #yes23

@RositaDaz48 And Dutton?

Australia has nothing more than an activist & a dictator as a Prime Minister. By pushing for a yes vote, he is affecting the integrity of the referendum & undermining the democratic process. —The governments’ sole duty is to frame the question, then back off & be guided by the democratic outcome. -To apply pressure, intimidate, or otherwise push their own agenda by engineering a taxpayer funded campaign is a disgraceful abuse of power & makes a mockery of the Constitution of this country!!

@CameronWall Or you could vote yes so your kids can live in a country where the most disadvantaged minority, who are the original custodians of our land, are living to the same standard as your kids. And everyone is more united - as equals.

Plenty of reading including the whole 118 pages of the The Uluru Statement from the Heart. The Voice has created a racial divide in our country that didn't exist previously. I don’t want my kids and grandkids to end up in a divided Australia so will be voting No. #VoteNo

@CameronWall @bnthompson @realDHolland It could have been, Shorten was a proponent for it. It could have potentially answered some of the questions and added more clarity on the working model. Doesn’t provide an enduring solution though

@bnthompson @realDHolland @PabloChappo Sitting on many Boards, both company's and sports, to change a Constitution is a massive deal. So much so that it requires a 75% consensus. Why wasn't the Voice legislated first?

A NO vote explicitly says “No, we shouldn’t listen to First Nations communities about what they need.” Every other argument for NO is either a baseless aversion to change, a needless projection of fear, a sad manifestation of ignorance or a veiled expression of racism. #Yes23

@bnthompson My post didn’t imply that all No voters are ignorant or racist. And no, the referendum isn’t just asking if we agree to amend the constitution. There’s a clear purpose for change, and many futures rely on it. To say No to that requires better alternatives or why get in the way?

@PabloChappo That’s not what your original post implies. Also, the purpose of a referendum is to ask voting Australian’s if they support a proposed amendment to The Constitution. People are free to not support the proposed amendment without suggesting an alternative.

@bnthompson I’m not saying all No voters are ignorant or racist. A lot of No voters I know aren’t. But their reasons for voting No still don’t critically or objectively answer what other solutions can/will lift Indigenous Australians out of their unique disadvantage on terms they agree to.

@PabloChappo Im sure you can find them if you listen to some notable Indigenous Australian’s leading the very popular No campaign. Are they ignorant racists too?

@bnthompson What are they? I haven’t seen any that are enduring and have the same level of support from Indigenous people as the Voice?

@PabloChappo There have been plenty of suggestions for how The Voice could have been improved and had bipartisan support. Accusing anyone who now decides to vote No of projecting fear, being ignorant and being racist is just offensive.

@bnthompson There are other ways, of course, but many of them have grossly failed. And legislating the Voice actually offers the same thing only with greater risk of failing because of political jousting. Keen to hear more effective proposals that offer an abiding and effective alternative?

@PabloChappo Alternatively, a No vote is an educated decision that the proposed change to the Australian Constitution has details and flaws that have not been adequately addressed or explained. Surely you appreciate there are other ways to listen to First Nations communities?

@bnthompson Neither does the High court being flooded with disputes argument. It’s in the interests of all Indigenous Australians for the Voice to be an effective advisory body to Parliament. And Parliament will have the ability to help it succeed providing there’s bipartisan support.

@PabloChappo The Voice will amend The Constitution so The High Court, not just Parliament, will have a crucial and permanent role to play in interpreting and applying The Voice. The 'don't worry, Parliament will make all the decisions' argument doesn't stack up

Think of the The Constitution of Australia as the menu you get in a restaurant. It doesn’t give you the recipe. That’s for the chefs in the kitchen… (politicians in Parliament) to decide on. This #referendum is asking if the menu is worth serving. The recipe will follow.

@bnthompson You’re misinterpreting my analogy. The Constitution does not provide the details of how the Voice works. Parliament does that. Yes the HC interprets and applies the articles of the Constitution.

@PabloChappo Unfortunately not, the High Court's role is to interpret and apply The Constitution, meaning The Voice will be permanently subjected to interpretation by an unelected body. The Constitution of Australia is nothing like a menu

@bnthompson Parliament will decide on how the Voice works. The High Court will arbitrate any disputes over how it works. The analogy stands your Honor!

@PabloChappo Not sure your analogy works Chappo. The High Court is the ultimate arbiter of The Constitution, not Parliament.

Because we have lived, since federation, with governments that have made laws FOR Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, not WITH them. It’s time we started to listen. Vote smart. #Referendum2023

All this talk about the Voice creating an Us vs Them division fails to recognise that it ALREADY EXISTS! Closing the Gap is evidence of that. 15 out of the 19 recommendations have still yet to be achieved or have failed completely. Why?