Originally Posted by JJBlows
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
|
Probably no for me
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
You don't sound like a fuckwit neighbour though.
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
Piss on his plants so that they all die.
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.
My level of sarcasm depends on your level of stupidity.
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
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
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
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!
Posting Permissions
|
|
|
|
|