The referendum, yes or no?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LuvAsianPuss

I'll vote NO. Why can't they tell us any detail of the change, they've had plenty of time to think it through?

---

True. The Voice lobby groups have had over 5-8 years discussing the Voice

No doubt many of the lobby would have preferred to present an actual model to Australia. I suspect the model doesn't stand up to scrutiny, as it just duplicates what already exists. As a result Australia is being asked to vote for something that hasn't been properly explained

As John Farnham sang:
You're the Voice. Try to understand it

Do you understand it?
Without the details provided?

My fuckwit next door neighbour, who I generally avoid, said to me recently "I'm voting yes as you can't give the Aboriginies enough. How are you voting?".
I said "well, you're an idiot & none of your fucking business anyway!" and just went back inside.

Go back to where you come from, oh wait maybe where your ancestors come from. I'll vote yes for this

It's not about aboriginal people it's never been about aboriginal people it's all about left showing their moral superiority

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fted

It's a YES for me. It's limited to making 'representations' to parliament, so does not have any veto powers over laws.

"There are no details..." well, there are, but that's not the purpose of changing the constitution anyway. Laws are introduced via legislation, not the constitution.

I can only see it as a positive step towards closing the gap.

---

See the high court decides constitutional matters and by voting yes and allowing a voice to parliament in the constitution means that any decision made in parliament that is against the wishes of this "voice" means it can be fought in the high court as it's a constitutional issue.

I know someone who has worked with the aboriginal community in the past and even some elders who are level headed are upset with their own community. Even thought on paper and the media they are united as one nation, behind the scenes they are a very divided community along clan and tribal lines and do not get along - classic example was that smoking ceremony where the other aboriginal confronted that other aboriginal employed to do the ceremony about how he cant carry out the ceremony as it was not his land (clans and tribes) They always want money to fix their issues and usually spend it on them selves and not fix their issues, they are very nepotism based community, another example is council wanting to plant trees on aboriginal land and they hit them up for money to do it.

There have always been an advisory body to the government about aboriginal issues but every change of goverment it is dissolved and replaced, so the whole issue of the voice is to have a permanent advisory body that can't be dissolved, but the reason it is always dissolved by new governments is because the previous ones weren't doing anything beneficial for the community and essentially became a money pit because they always say "we just need money to fix this issue". The Australian government already spends on average $35,000 per aboriginal person per year.

This is a slippery slope as yes they should have a say but at the same time if you give them a solid and permanent foundation that can't be challenged, it can cause problems for everybody because they will fight amongst themselves but also some but not all will try and lay claim to every issue. Aboriginal police officers who obviously know their own culture and practices and who are better suited to being a police officer rather than a white person when dealing with the community and crimes are subjected to abuse by members of their own community as being a traitor when they are just trying to help their own people.

Unfortunately there is still some communities that still promote a culture of hating the white fella and also even members of their own community who try to do the right thing are referred to as "coconuts" - black on the outside but white on the inside.

The whole change to the youth crime incarceration is just hiding the issue for them and doesn't fix the issue, banning alcohol or limiting its supply is a good thing to a certain degree but not foolproof because I've been told stories of long haul truckies buying alcohol at major centres and then driving across the outback and trading bottles of grog for sex with aboriginal girls as young as 13.

Probably no for me

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JJBlows

See the high court decides constitutional matters and by voting yes and allowing a voice to parliament in the constitution means that any decision made in parliament that is against the wishes of this "voice" means it can be fought in the high court as it's a constitutional issue.

---

This is nonsense. the government doesn't have to act on anything the voice to parliament says.

https://www.afr.com/politics/federal...0230421-p5d2bz

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by schloong

My fuckwit next door neighbour, who I generally avoid, said to me recently "I'm voting yes as you can't give the Aboriginies enough. How are you voting?".
I said "well, you're an idiot & none of your fucking business anyway!" and just went back inside.

---

You don't sound like a fuckwit neighbour though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ReginaldBubbles

This is nonsense. the government doesn't have to act on anything the voice to parliament says.

https://www.afr.com/politics/federal...0230421-p5d2bz

---

Yes that is true but what people are forgetting is that if they go against advice etc from the voice, the voice cant change but challenge it in parliament and still be ignored, the law gets passed and then the voice can challenge it latter in the high courts.

It's the fine print. The high courts can't intervene and influence parliament with a law that's being proposed and passed in parliament as its was passed via a democratic vote in the senate - "the high court will not intervene in the INTERNAL WORKINGS of parliament" which means its cant do anything whilst the change is being proposed during its representation, after its introduced in legislation then it can be challenged in the high court where its states on the yes side of the pamphlet.

The two main points are:

1- high court challenges regarding representations to the parliament which are ignored by the voice in parliament will not have the high court intervene. Ie, discussing the law internally and ignoring the voices advice whilst making it a proposal for legislation

2- high court challenges regarding representations to the executive that ignored the voice or refused its representations may have the high court direct the executive to reread everything relevant to the decision and remake the decision.

Parliament makes the legislation, executive enforces the legislation and the judicial interprets the legislation.

The voices can simply challenge a law after its introduced, passed and then enforced in the high court and change the outcome of the law, but they can do the exact same thing whilst the law is being proposed in parliament and still fail but can't have the high court intervene in that process.

I’m still keen to listen to both sides but some of the reasons coming out of the NO don’t even make sense. One of my relatives was talking about a land tax being passed. I mean aren’t politicians some of the richest property investors in the country? Why would they tax themselves? I do think the NO vote will win though. Even though they are lying more, they’re fighting harder, spending more money on ads and the general public isn’t intelligent enough to know the difference whereas I don’t think the YES campaign is selling it hard enough. Sometimes to win you gotta fight dirty and that’s what the NO campaign is doing

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by schloong

My fuckwit next door neighbour, who I generally avoid, said to me recently "I'm voting yes as you can't give the Aboriginies enough. How are you voting?".
I said "well, you're an idiot & none of your fucking business anyway!" and just went back inside.

---

Piss on his plants so that they all die.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JJBlows

Yes that is true but what people are forgetting is that if they go against advice etc from the voice, the voice cant change but challenge it in parliament and still be ignored, the law gets passed and then the voice can challenge it latter in the high courts.

It's the fine print. The high courts can't intervene and influence parliament with a law that's being proposed and passed in parliament as its was passed via a democratic vote in the senate - "the high court will not intervene in the INTERNAL WORKINGS of parliament" which means its cant do anything whilst the change is being proposed during its representation, after its introduced in legislation then it can be challenged in the high court where its states on the yes side of the pamphlet.

The two main points are:

1- high court challenges regarding representations to the parliament which are ignored by the voice in parliament will not have the high court intervene. Ie, discussing the law internally and ignoring the voices advice whilst making it a proposal for legislation

2- high court challenges regarding representations to the executive that ignored the voice or refused its representations may have the high court direct the executive to reread everything relevant to the decision and remake the decision.

Parliament makes the legislation, executive enforces the legislation and the judicial interprets the legislation.

The voices can simply challenge a law after its introduced, passed and then enforced in the high court and change the outcome of the law, but they can do the exact same thing whilst the law is being proposed in parliament and still fail but can't have the high court intervene in that process.

---

Where does it say on the yes pamphlet anything about high court challenges?

I have no idea what you’re trying to say in point 1.

And the executive only has to listen to representations, not act on them so what would be the point of forcing them to listen again when they don’t have to do anything. They can’t “simply challenge a law after it’s introduced and change the outcome of the law”.

The following is a collection of senior legal figures and organisations that have come out publicly in support of the proposed Indigenous Voice to Parliament. I think I’ll take my legal advice from them.

Australia’s Solicitor-General, Stephen Donaghue
https://theconversation.com/solicitor-general-confirms...
Shadow Attorney-General Julian Leeser
https://www.abc.net.au/.../liberal-f...r.../102207614
Former High Court chief justice Robert French.
https://www.afr.com/.../voice-is-low...ut-high-return...
Former High Court Chief Justice Murray Gleeson
https://insidestory.org.au/why-i-support-a-voice-to.../
Former High Court Chief Justice Kenneth Hayne
https://www.abc.net.au/.../kenneth-h...s.../102153848
Former Chief Justice of NSW James Spigelman
https://amp.smh.com.au/.../as-a-former-chief-justice-i...
Former Judge of the High Court of Australia Mary Gaudron
Former President of the Supreme Court of Western Australia Court of Appeal Carmel McLure
Former Judge of the Supreme Court of Victoria Court of Appeal Stephen Charles
Former Judge of the Supreme Court of Victoria Court of Appeal David Harper
Former Judge of the Supreme Court of NSW Court of Appeal, former President of the Anti-Discrimination Board Paul Stein
Former Judge of the Supreme Court of NSW Court of Appeal Anthony Whealy
Former Commissioner of the Victorian Independent Broad-based Anti-Corruption Commission (IBAC), former Judge of the Supreme Court of Victoria Court of Appeal Robert Redlich
Former Judge of the Supreme Court of Queensland Court of Appeal Margaret White
https://australiainstitute.org.au/.....ing-judges.../
Law Council of Australia
https://lawcouncil.au/.../voice-to-p...ent-is-legally...
Law Society NSW
https://www.lawsociety.com.au/.../180823%20Council%20of...
Queensland Law Society
https://www.qls.com.au/.../Statement-on-the-Voice-to...
The Law Institute of Victoria
https://www.liv.asn.au/.../In_support_of_the_Voice.aspx
Law Society of South Australia
https://www.lawsocietysa.asn.au/.../...nal_and_Torres...
Law Society of Western Australia
https://www.lawsocietywa.asn.au/voice-to-parliament/...
Law Society of Northern Territory
https://lawsocietynt.asn.au/.../1721-media-release...
ACT Law Society
https://www.actlawsociety.asn.au/.../statement-on-the...
.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ReginaldBubbles

Where does it say on the yes pamphlet anything about high court challenges?

I have no idea what you’re trying to say in point 1.

And the executive only has to listen to representations, not act on them so what would be the point of forcing them to listen again when they don’t have to do anything. They can’t “simply challenge a law after it’s introduced and change the outcome of the law”.

The following is a collection of senior legal figures and organisations that have come out publicly in support of the proposed Indigenous Voice to Parliament. I think I’ll take my legal advice from them.

Australia’s Solicitor-General, Stephen Donaghue
https://theconversation.com/solicitor-general-confirms...
Shadow Attorney-General Julian Leeser
https://www.abc.net.au/.../liberal-f...r.../102207614
Former High Court chief justice Robert French.
https://www.afr.com/.../voice-is-low...ut-high-return...
Former High Court Chief Justice Murray Gleeson
https://insidestory.org.au/why-i-support-a-voice-to.../
Former High Court Chief Justice Kenneth Hayne
https://www.abc.net.au/.../kenneth-h...s.../102153848
Former Chief Justice of NSW James Spigelman
https://amp.smh.com.au/.../as-a-former-chief-justice-i...
Former Judge of the High Court of Australia Mary Gaudron
Former President of the Supreme Court of Western Australia Court of Appeal Carmel McLure
Former Judge of the Supreme Court of Victoria Court of Appeal Stephen Charles
Former Judge of the Supreme Court of Victoria Court of Appeal David Harper
Former Judge of the Supreme Court of NSW Court of Appeal, former President of the Anti-Discrimination Board Paul Stein
Former Judge of the Supreme Court of NSW Court of Appeal Anthony Whealy
Former Commissioner of the Victorian Independent Broad-based Anti-Corruption Commission (IBAC), former Judge of the Supreme Court of Victoria Court of Appeal Robert Redlich
Former Judge of the Supreme Court of Queensland Court of Appeal Margaret White
https://australiainstitute.org.au/.....ing-judges.../
Law Council of Australia
https://lawcouncil.au/.../voice-to-p...ent-is-legally...
Law Society NSW
https://www.lawsociety.com.au/.../180823%20Council%20of...
Queensland Law Society
https://www.qls.com.au/.../Statement-on-the-Voice-to...
The Law Institute of Victoria
https://www.liv.asn.au/.../In_support_of_the_Voice.aspx
Law Society of South Australia
https://www.lawsocietysa.asn.au/.../...nal_and_Torres...
Law Society of Western Australia
https://www.lawsocietywa.asn.au/voice-to-parliament/...
Law Society of Northern Territory
https://lawsocietynt.asn.au/.../1721-media-release...
ACT Law Society
https://www.actlawsociety.asn.au/.../statement-on-the...
.

---

All the links you posted don't work, and obviously senior figures like these will have to support it otherwise they would be ostracised, that's common sense. Look at what happened to Israel folau, he wasn't a dick he just said it didn't line up with his religion.

You asked me about the yes pamphlet and where it says it and that's the thing, it does not say absolutely anything about the technical details of how it works which is why so many people are critical of it, it's a generalisation thay has a major impact and people want to know specifics on how it works. It's say they will not have Veto power which is true but every law can be challenged in the high courts in regards to constitutional issues, a law passed could infringe on aboriginal human rights and can be challenged.

The point i was making about point 1 is a law can still be passed in parliament with out bi partisan support and the voice can argue it but cant override it or stop it from being made law, once it goes into law, then from a constitutional aspect it can be argued and the high courts can force parliament to adjust the law or stop it from being law.

Israel Falou 🤣🤣 he’s still learning the saying “You get what you give”. Preach intolerance then don’t be shocked or cry when you receive it in return

Isn't fun to have the looney left here in the shape of Mr Bubbles to muddy the waters and try to confuse everyone. He even uses his looney left mates in the legal fraternity to back him up. These are the same idiots who give "slap on the wrist sentences" to murderers and rapists, the same idiots who let criminals out on "good behaviour bonds" only for them to go straight out and offend again! I'd hate to be a cop, arrest an offender only to see him let off by a looney left magistrate and continue on his crime spree.
Me thinks Mr Bubbles is Schloongs neighbour. It wouldn't surprise me if his next post is "some prick's pissed on my plants".

At least Mr JJBlows has put down his reasons eloquently and in terms that are easy to understand. Something the yes campaign still hasn't been able to do and won't do as they DON'T WANT YOU TO UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU ARE VOTING FOR.

https://youtu.be/o76q3C5URco?si=nJGsj60XXcErpCT8

Sky News, the news channel were you can’t understand what they’re saying because Murdoch’s balls are slapping on their chin too loudly

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dotcumdotinyou

Isn't fun to have the looney left here in the shape of Mr Bubbles to muddy the waters and try to confuse everyone. He even uses his looney left mates in the legal fraternity to back him up. These are the same idiots who give "slap on the wrist sentences" to murderers and rapists, the same idiots who let criminals out on "good behaviour bonds" only for them to go straight out and offend again! I'd hate to be a cop, arrest an offender only to see him let off by a looney left magistrate and continue on his crime spree.
Me thinks Mr Bubbles is Schloongs neighbour. It wouldn't surprise me if his next post is "some prick's pissed on my plants".

At least Mr JJBlows has put down his reasons eloquently and in terms that are easy to understand. Something the yes campaign still hasn't been able to do and won't do as they DON'T WANT YOU TO UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU ARE VOTING FOR.

---

Are there any citations on that the voice will be able to use the high court to enforce its suggestions? Sounds dubious at best to the objective mind. I would agree that the yes campaign could sell it better but why would Albanese, who has an investment property portfolio of over $5 million now, be keen to pass something so reckless that would screw him over in such a devastatingly personal manner? I’m interested in hearing facts that can be backed up, not name calling like loony left. Those terms are best left in tabloids prints owned by out of touch billionaires

For example, one of the more extreme examples of something the NO campaign is saying is the voice will suggest a land tax on all properties with the funds raised going back to them. Parliament would laugh that out of the room and the suggestion that the voice could then take something like that to the high court and therefore suggesting even Labor politicians, who own hoards of investment properties themselves, hadn’t already thought of this and is something that’s hard to take serious unless there’s something to back it up? I don’t think the voice will bring about such drastic change. The main issue with the yes campaign is they’re not selling hard enough but that’s given the opportunity for the no campaign to come in and spread their usual “they’re coming for you” paranoia fear campaign with the usual Murdoch funded tropes and name calling. Newscorp seems desperate to fund a win after losing the federal and now a number of state elections but so far it hasn’t been honest either

And now Palmer's kicking in $2mil to support the NO campaign, crikey!
https://www.crikey.com.au/2023/09/29...-no-camp-voice

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fud

And now Palmer's kicking in $2mil to support the NO campaign, crikey!
https://www.crikey.com.au/2023/09/29...-no-camp-voice

---

Lol, tweet from

Dr Monique Ryan MP
@Mon4Kooyong

If Clive Palmer is a No, I’m voting Yes.

Makes you wonder how these billionaires stay billionaires when they throw money around so recklessly. How does he not slam his head against the wall whenever he thinks about how much money he shat down the drain during the last federal election 🤣

I really did try and read through Bubbly's post, but the thread has more broken links than fucken escorts & babes. Anyway for what it's worth if you really wanna know what the long term outcome for AU will be, do a little research on the NZ experience ie Waitangi Tribunal. The Waitangi Tribunal started off as an advisory body, exactly the same as our Voice to Parliament is supposed to be, but after a series of governmental and legal/judicial fuckups it has now made the NZ Parliament subservient to the Māori Voice. The country has been fucked and hamstrung by the tribunal and you only need to ask the kiwi's in NZ to understand this. Either way trusting what a politician says is like trusting a monkey with a sharp razor blade....they're both fucken dangerous and unpredictable.

Basically, Albo is asking you to sign a blank cheque. Would you sign a blank cheque? There is your answer. A big NO

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JJBlows

All the links you posted don't work, and obviously senior figures like these will have to support it otherwise they would be ostracised, that's common sense. Look at what happened to Israel folau, he wasn't a dick he just said it didn't line up with his religion.

---

Yeah the site I copied the links from didn't include the full links in the text but I doubt anyone here would read them anyway. And saying that pretty much all the top legal experts bodies have decided to give incorrect legal advice for fear of being ostracised seems to be the opposite of common sense. Lucky we have great legal minds like you to give frank and fearless advice!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JJBlows

asked me about the yes pamphlet and where it says it and that's the thing, it does not say absolutely anything about the technical details of how it works which is why so many people are critical of it, it's a generalisation thay has a major impact and people want to know specifics on how it works. It's say they will not have Veto power which is true but every law can be challenged in the high courts in regards to constitutional issues, a law passed could infringe on aboriginal human rights and can be challenged.

The point i was making about point 1 is a law can still be passed in parliament with out bi partisan support and the voice can argue it but cant override it or stop it from being made law, once it goes into law, then from a constitutional aspect it can be argued and the high courts can force parliament to adjust the law or stop it from being law.

---

If you've read anything about the voice I'm sure you must've read that most things in the constitution don't have fine detail, that's for the government of the day to work out which means it can be changed like all legislation and it's not set in stone. I think Labor has been pretty clear that it's just a small body of non government advisors that don't have any power to introduce or alter any legislation. If the LNP gets in they can make it smaller or whatever, the only thing in the constitution is that a body gets to make representation to government. That's it. Nothing to worry about.

It almost sounds like you think we shouldn't have any laws at all in case they're challenged in court!