The referendum, yes or 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!

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.

---

Very eloquent argument mr cuminyou. Especially your nuanced opinions on "law and order". The Murdoch press gets a lot of clicks from confecting such outrage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Double_Adapter

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.

---

Hopefully this link works. Compiled by an ex federal police officer who worked in counter-terrorism. https://www.facebook.com/realcarrick...WauhzmuEEiNpCl Any actual examples about NZ being fucked and hamstrung and being subservient to the Maoris? I'd be interested in reading about it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sharphorse

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

---

Sorry but you have got one of your facts totally wrong. The YES campaign is far better funded. Just westpac cba and bhp alone kicked in 6 mio. Also tried to make donations to yes tax deductible but not donations to no until the threat of legal action made him back down.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ReginaldBubbles

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!




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!

---

Bro what do you mean the constitution doesn't have fine details (it has 8 chapters with a 128 subsections outlining how it works), its the law that basically has specific details to separate all branches of government to ensure their is a equal distribution of power in Australia - you have to be specific in details inorder for it to work here like it does and what roles the senate, parliament, executive, states and judiciary have.

And what the fuck do you mean "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"????? - For a start this the exact thing why people vote no is because they are trying to sell us something that they say will work for the better but at the same time have no fucking idea how it's going to work at the same time, look at what happened with the carbon tax, people thought it was a great idea until they figured out how to do it and then it stung a lot of business financially and made problems to the point they had to scrap it, that was legislation and could be easily reversed but to have the same naive view about doing the same thing with a constitution is ridiculous because the constitution is extremely hard to change or revert decisions for the fact its there to keep power sharing etc equal amongst all branches, once it's in the constitution it's extremely hard to change it back.

And yes as I stated before it's they can't alter or introduce legislation BEFORE but when it becomes law, as per the constitution the voice can argue the law passed in the high courts which can delay or hamstring laws from being enacted from litigation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JJBlows

Bro what do you mean the constitution doesn't have fine details (it has 8 chapters with a 128 subsections outlining how it works),

---

I mean that it says stuff like, "this is what the government can make laws about" but it doesn't outline the specific detail of those laws because like you said if the finer details are in the constitution it's very difficult to change. Which is why it's better to leave those things up to parliament so the details can evolve over time. It's quite obvious here for example. Where's the detail??

https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliam...-01_part-05_51

And Australia would be much better off with a price on carbon and we would've transitioned to renewables much more easily using market forces. John Howard supported it (the supposed party of market forces) until Labor did and then he used it as a political tool as they often do. They supported cutting franking credits until Labor did too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JJBlows

as per the constitution the voice can argue the law passed in the high courts which can delay or hamstring laws from being enacted from litigation

---

People can do this already, the voice to parliament will make no difference to this right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ReginaldBubbles

Any actual examples about NZ being fucked and hamstrung and being subservient to the Maoris? I'd be interested in reading about it.

---

Here you go bro.There's more articles on various NZ sites, and I'll post them if you're still interested.

https://ipa.org.au/wp-content/upload...-Australia.pdf

In short, the decisions made in that time have been a smorgasbord of social justice activism, the results of which have been to divide New Zealanders by race. The research finds that the Voice, if it follows the precedent established through decades of Waitangi Tribunal cases, will suffer from serious flaws. The Waitangi Tribunal shows:
• the scope of the Voice will expand greatly over time;
• the Voice will possess a veto over certain legislation;
• the Voice will engage in divisive racial politics; and
• the Voice will create new types of Indigenous rights, which means extra rights for one group of Australians based on their race

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Double_Adapter

Here you go bro.There's more articles on various NZ sites, and I'll post them if you're still interested.

https://ipa.org.au/wp-content/upload...-Australia.pdf

In short, the decisions made in that time have been a smorgasbord of social justice activism, the results of which have been to divide New Zealanders by race. The research finds that the Voice, if it follows the precedent established through decades of Waitangi Tribunal cases, will suffer from serious flaws. The Waitangi Tribunal shows:
• the scope of the Voice will expand greatly over time;
• the Voice will possess a veto over certain legislation;
• the Voice will engage in divisive racial politics; and
• the Voice will create new types of Indigenous rights, which means extra rights for one group of Australians based on their race

---

FFS dude, the Institute of Public Affairs?? Far right "think tank" funded by the likes of Gina Rinehart and various tobacco and fossil fuel companies. Not an independent source of unbiased information by any means. Keen to hear from other sources though.

Vote no

It's a waste of money

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pornonporn

Vote no

It's a waste of money

---

Definitely not a reason to vote no. The amount of money it will cost is insignificant in the federal budget.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vader

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

---

This is not true at all. It's a voice to tell the government first hand what Indigenous people actually need rather than governments who have no idea making the decisions. The government of the day can listen to the voice and tell them to fuck off if they want. Nothing to worry about

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ReginaldBubbles

This is not true at all. It's a voice to tell the government first hand what Indigenous people actually need rather than governments who have no idea making the decisions. The government of the day can listen to the voice and tell them to fuck off if they want. Nothing to worry about

---

We already have indigenous senators and members in parliament why do we need a voice

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pornonporn

We already have indigenous senators and members in parliament why do we need a voice

---

Because it's about hearing about stories on the ground and genuine community representation, without political party affiliation. Government can totally ignore it so nothing to worry about. You're not going to have your backyard taken away from you, or pay a land tax and it's not a declaration of war on the "Australian way of life" but it is certainly a good opportunity for Dutton, Sky et al to create division for the sake of partisanship.

Yeah but how much money has been spent on advertising and the yes campaign as well as the cost of the voice establishment.
How much in total is that going to cost.

Would that money be spent to Aboriginal's living on slabs on concrete.
We already know what indigenous people need, they need housing, medical needs, education, community services.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tkicks

Sorry but you have got one of your facts totally wrong. The YES campaign is far better funded. Just westpac cba and bhp alone kicked in 6 mio. Also tried to make donations to yes tax deductible but not donations to no until the threat of legal action made him back down.

---

I’m not wrong, I only mentioned money spent on ads. Sure, the yes campaign has got plenty of corporate sponsorship because companies love to virtue signal these days but the no campaign has received a lot of money too, generally more so from individual billionaires than companies themselves, and anyway as I said I was referring to money spent on advertising, not who has the most sponsors or donors

The yes vote isn't very clear about what exactly they want... so it's a no...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ReginaldBubbles

Because it's about hearing about stories on the ground and genuine community representation, without political party affiliation. Government can totally ignore it so nothing to worry about. You're not going to have your backyard taken away from you, or pay a land tax and it's not a declaration of war on the "Australian way of life" but it is certainly a good opportunity for Dutton, Sky et al to create division for the sake of partisanship.

---

That is what Linda Burney is there for as well as the other 3000+ organizations for Indigenous people solely. I genuinely believe that the only way for the poor sad Indigenous doing it really tough in remote and regional areas to rise up to the standard of living of ordinary Australians is to have a countrywide alcohol ban. I know it will never happen , and I enjoy having beers, but this is in my opinion the ONLY solution.

If the Australian Government is genuinely wanting to help the indigenous community to live a better life moving forward, may be they can learn a few things from China:

The World Bank logo

Who We Are
This page in: English
PRESS RELEASEAPRIL 1, 2022

Lifting 800 Million People Out of Poverty – New Report Looks at Lessons from China’s Experience.

Clive Palmer will spend millions ensuring the No vote gets up, I wonder why? This is the guy who refused to pay his own workers while jet setting around the world and falling asleep in parliament. The majority of the politicians voting No are self serving liberals with no moral or ethical compass. They’re all about me me me me me. The No argument is headed by some of the nastiest people in Australia. That in itself should says enough.

Imagine being guests in a house and wishing ill on the people who live there? Unbelievable we we all agree we have won the lottery of life that we’re in Australia yet we can’t allow the original inhabitants the opportunities that are not provided to them. Change needs to happen, it will take generations but it has to start somewhere and education is key.

This is just an advisory group looking out for their best interests and there’s nothing wrong with that. Canberra is full of lobby groups wanting to impart us from our money. I’m guessing the indigenous people will likely have decent ideas of where the money should go and how it should be spent.

People saying that Mundine and Price should be listened to? Your kidding!! They are Libs through and through and are just following the party playbook. They’re already receiving their payoffs.

The people talking about the lack of detail, how many of you have checked out the yes23 website? Plenty of detail on there.
Imagine having the opportunity to improve the lives of one of the most vulnerable and disadvantaged people in our country, let alone the original inhabitants that give us our own unique cultural identity, and not taking it.

When people talk about the challenges in remote communities, all I see are reasons to vote Yes.

Have you seen Kamahl's reason why he changed to no