Select to expand quotesnoidberg said..
I have never voted in my life and don't intend to register ever, I'm quite happy complaining.
The less government the better.
But how can that be, it's a legal requirement to vote, you get fined if you don't vote. But, I guess if you're not enrolled they don't know you exist, and if you don't exist they can't fine you. (I'm not enrolled either)
But the rule is you must never complain, as it is your choice not to vote and have a say. I'm happy with my choice.
So why is this representative/ advisory body going to be better than any of the previous ones?
Select to expand quotebjw said..
So why is this representative/ advisory body going to be better than any of the previous ones?
Because gov will be getting advice and suggestions from the people affected.
Makes sense that if you have a problem discuss it with those directly involved, and it is what they have politely asked for.
What we've been doing for years hasn't exactly worked, so more of the same is no solution.
Worst case, if it doesn't live up to expectations we're no worse off.
I think that I am personally going to vote yes. Not because I understand anything that has been advertised or described, because that has been pretty poor. I just figure that it's another step to everyone here feeling they are part of Australia. I can't see any benefit to voting 'no' so it's more a case of voting 'no' to 'No'.
What I do worry about, but can't change with a vote, is that this will become another government organisation where the people in charge just get stuck with politics and the opinion of a few vocal people. Just like every other normal government group left to it's own devices. No matter the background of the people it is always the same.
I think it would be better to have a government group, tasked with proving that they have sought the opinions and found the issues with all these disadvantaged groups across Australia. Nothing else. Just to find the problems. Not to solve them, because that is what will result in this group becoming exactly the same as any other group asked to solve these problems. All big organisations become stuck in a loop of introspection when they have too large an aim.
Is this going to be the result of a 'yes' vote? I don't think anyone knows, but no is obviously going to be the same as spending the same amount of money on idiots in government spending money and not solving the problems.
The referendum is simply about whether to set up a voice, an advisory body.
I don't see why people are in a panic about "details".
The details are organised by government as they do everyday for any legislation.
And they can change them anytime as required. The next government can alter things to fix any shortcomings that they perceive.
No need to panic.
Select to expand quotebjw said..
So why is this representative/ advisory body going to be better than any of the previous ones?
Which ones?
Select to expand quotemyscreenname said..Harrow said..
It did? How?
I don't care if we are a republic or not, but I'm curious how not becoming a republic has 'set Australia back'. Is this a demonstrably universally held view?
I think it's inevitable that Australia will be a republic, so yes it did set us back.
Now get in line to suck it
I think both the republic referendum and the voice suffer the same problem of complicating the question:
- should australia be a republic or a constitutional
monarchy? Y/n
- should first nations people be recognised in the constitution as the original inhabitants of the country? y/n
Both issues were complicated by the wording which led to exploitation of the core part of the issue. The necessity for a voice to parliament is divisive, acknowledging that aboriginals were here first is probably not.
daylight savings in WA is the more important issue tearing our nation apart
Select to expand quotesgo said..
The referendum is simply about whether to set up a voice, an advisory body.
I don't see why people are in a panic about "details".
The details are organised by government as they do everyday for any legislation.
And they can change them anytime as required. The next government can alter things to fix any shortcomings that they perceive.
No need to panic.
'Cause the devil's in the details
Select to expand quoteSublime said..sgo said..
The referendum is simply about whether to set up a voice, an advisory body.
I don't see why people are in a panic about "details".
The details are organised by government as they do everyday for any legislation.
And they can change them anytime as required. The next government can alter things to fix any shortcomings that they perceive.
No need to panic.
'Cause the devil's in the details
Which can be changed by the government of the day, like other legislation. So if the Coalition gets back in, it can unwind any "devilish details". What's so bad about that?
Select to expand quoteCH3MTR4IL5 said..
I think both the republic referendum and the voice suffer the same problem of complicating the question:
- should australia be a republic or a constitutional
monarchy? Y/n
- should first nations people be recognised in the constitution as the original inhabitants of the country? y/n
Both issues were complicated by the wording which led to exploitation of the core part of the issue. The necessity for a voice to parliament is divisive, acknowledging that aboriginals were here first is probably not.
daylight savings in WA is the more important issue tearing our nation apart
I agree with you on the Republic. But there is no need for the constitution to recognise that aboriginals were the first inhabitants - thats a fact.
I see the voice as formally recognising that indigenous people are disadvantaged. Whether this change in the constitution will improve their circumstances is debatable. I think it might, many obviously don't or don't care.
Not even Andrew Bolt can argue that Aboriginals were not the original inhabitants.
Select to expand quoteSublime said..
'Cause the devil's in the details
Where do you draw that line? Have each option specced out in detail and have everyone vote on exactly what they want and which option is best? That would never work.
The wording seems pretty benign.
In recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia
1. There shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice.
2. The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice may make representations to the Parliament and
the Executive Government of the Commonwealth on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander peoples.
3. The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws with respect to
matters relating to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, including its composition,
functions, powers and procedures.
It doesn't assign any power to this new group, it just says it can make representations. The actual implementation has to be done by parliament, and have you ever seen anything go through parliament easily if its complex?
Select to expand quoteMr Milk said..
I would have picked you for a Sky Stupidity watcher. That's Murdoch, so quintessential MSM. You won't see too much pro voice content there, but plenty of pandering to RWNJ grievances
From what I have seen on Sky, they have a very vocal Yes supporter in one of the main presenters, and he gets lots of airtime in which to say his piece.
I have seen nothing similarly balanced on the No case elsewhere.
Select to expand quoteCH3MTR4IL5 said..
.... daylight savings in WA is the more important issue tearing our nation apart
Hah! Daylight savings in WA... when I looked at these things I saw that WA went to a vote 4 times in 4 decades and even went through a trial and didn't vote for it afterwards.
I guess when the people speak, you can listen or just keep calling for more voting ;-)
Select to expand quoteremery said..bjw said..
So why is this representative/ advisory body going to be better than any of the previous ones?
Which ones?
www.theage.com.au/national/why-the-atsic-gravy-train-must-be-derailed-20030312-gdvd0m.html
Select to expand quoteFormulaNova said..
It doesn't assign any power to this new group, it just says it can make representations. The actual implementation has to be done by parliament, and have you ever seen anything go through parliament easily if its complex?
A body enshrined in the constitution is one of the most powerful body's in our system of government. Such a body making representations is a very serious matter that cannot be just ignored or dismissed. The High Court will side with that body in every case unless there is clear and compelling reason not to. The creators of the Voice have also clearly expressed thier willingness to challenge any ignored representations in the high court.
And no, nothing goes through gov easily, that is the point. A Voice body will have to power to stop or effectively stall anything that goes though parliment. They can bog anything they want down in legal challenges until thier demands are met.
This is a very dangerous and very serious change to our constitution and it will be used to get exactly what they want. What they want is clearly defined in the Uluru Statement:Self Determination
Treaty
Reparations
Recovery of land and exclusive access to natural resources on that land including Water and minerals
Select to expand quotemyscreenname said..
Not even Andrew Bolt can argue that Aboriginals were not the original inhabitants.
Which ones? The current Indian based indigenous population, or the Papuan / Denisovan indigenous peoples that they exterminated when they invaded about 10k years ago?
What happens when the Tasmanian or PNG based Papuan / Denisovan peoples decide to claim all current land rights for thier own as the current Indigenous stole the mainland from thier ancestors?
Select to expand quoteParadox said..FormulaNova said..
It doesn't assign any power to this new group, it just says it can make representations. The actual implementation has to be done by parliament, and have you ever seen anything go through parliament easily if its complex?
A body enshrined in the constitution is one of the most powerful body's in our system of government. Such a body making representations is a very serious matter that cannot be just ignored or dismissed. The High Court will side with that body in every case unless there is clear and compelling reason not to. The creators of the Voice have also clearly expressed thier willingness to challenge any ignored representations in the high court.
And no, nothing goes through gov easily, that is the point. A Voice body will have to power to stop or effectively stall anything that goes though parliment. They can bog anything they want down in legal challenges until thier demands are met.
This is a very dangerous and very serious change to our constitution and it will be used to get exactly what they want. What they want is clearly defined in the Uluru Statement:Self Determination
Treaty
Reparations
Recovery of land and exclusive access to natural resources on that land including Water and minerals
Wow, I read none of that in the wording. Are you sure you are not just making up a scenario that you think is going to happen but there is no susbtance to it?
The fact that most people who are voting yes are doing it for ideological reasons scares the pants off me.
Most reasoning boils down to, "we have to do something and what we are currently doing isn't working"
No actual understanding of the dangers of a constituted voice can bring. The power it will have over our parliment is massive and that power will attract people who want that power and the riches it will afford them.
Support for this voice from indigenous Australians falls away sharply as you leave the rich cities. There is a reason for that.
If you think this land was stolen from some people alive today, then fine vote yes and back up your committment by handing over any property you might have.
The Voice is enacted through legislation. It can be passed tomorrow by this government. That is why governments are elected, to do this stuff. Ask yourself why they needed to tack it onto a vote for just symbolic recognition?
Select to expand quoteParadox said..
Which ones? The current Indian based indigenous population, or the Papuan / Denisovan indigenous peoples that they exterminated when they invaded about 10k years ago?
What happens when the Tasmanian or PNG based Papuan / Denisovan peoples decide to claim all current land rights for thier own as the current Indigenous stole the mainland from thier ancestors?
All this talk about whether they were the first inhabitants is a waste of time even discussing. How are we to know that there were not aliens here before and ran away1 million years ago? We don't but its irrelevant anyway. There are people here and now that need a little more help to get along and improve their standard of living.
"Indian based" people? I don't know how you can nail down an identity to any group given that people pretty much spread out from somewhere. It is very unlikely that one group completely displaced another unless they were different species. I was reading something on this the other day where someone was claiming the Irish were not descended from Celts. It's not unheard of for invading people to interbreed and does that mean the result is still one group or the other?
Irrelevant discussion.
"powerful body" "serious matter" etc. Panic stations!
What a load of bull.
Voice can only make representations to the government, and gov. can act or reject as they see fit.
By the way, same as they do now with lobby groups, which is ok by us?
As far as the high court goes, you can take matters there if you have been wronged so nothing new there.
Seems like the No side resorting to misinformation and fear mongering?
Select to expand quoteFormulaNova said..
Wow, I read none of that in the wording. Are you sure you are not just making up a scenario that you think is going to happen but there is no susbtance to it?
It is all contained in the Uluru Statement From the Heart.
This report from the Referendum Council has discussion around the referendum and contains extracts from the Uluru Statement from page 16 to about page 32. Extracts from the Uluru document are higlighted in grey and contain the items I listed. www.referendumcouncil.org.au/sites/default/files/report_attachments/Referendum_Council_Final_Report.pdf?fbclid=IwAR0xM19OJG-8Eh5XmGd-mnmaZOJr0N-n2ljVlDyqg0WjPtQP5zG9tH_QfXQ
Select to expand quoteFormulaNova said..
All this talk about whether they were the first inhabitants is a waste of time even discussing. How are we to know that there were not aliens here before and ran away1 million years ago? We don't but its irrelevant anyway. There are people here and now that need a little more help to get a long and improve their standard of living.
"Indian based" people? I don't know how you can nail down an identity to any group given that people pretty much spread out from somewhere. It is very unlikely that one group completely displaced another unless they were different species. I was reading something on this the other day where someone was claiming the Irish were not descended from Celts. It's not unheard of for invading people to interbreed and does that mean the result is still one group or the other?
Irrelevant discussion.
I think it is relevent in the context of what is being claimed regarding reparations, native title etc.
And yes, DNA is a remarkable thing. It has been found that the inhabitants of mainland Australia were distinct from those in Papua and Tasmania and are more closely aligned with a migration out of India about 10-12k years ago (using DNA). Thier common ancestor was well before Australia was inhabited and the mainland languages can be traced back to no more than 10k years ago.
Tasmanian DNA is closely aligned with the Papuan DNA and is traced back to a migration about 40k years ago when there were land bridges between the Islands and the Mainland.
Adding the dots is not hard. Invasion and displacement was not a modern thing in Australia.
Select to expand quoteParadox said..FormulaNova said..
Wow, I read none of that in the wording. Are you sure you are not just making up a scenario that you think is going to happen but there is no susbtance to it?
It is all contained in the Uluru Statement From the Heart.
This report from the Referendum Council has discussion around the referendum and contains extracts from the Uluru Statement from page 16 to about page 32. Extracts from the Uluru document are higlighted in grey and contain the items I listed. www.referendumcouncil.org.au/sites/default/files/report_attachments/Referendum_Council_Final_Report.pdf?fbclid=IwAR0xM19OJG-8Eh5XmGd-mnmaZOJr0N-n2ljVlDyqg0WjPtQP5zG9tH_QfXQ
I think this is the bit that you're referring to?
Seems like they're willing to share
This sovereignty is a spiritual notion: the ancestral tie between the land, or 'mother nature',
and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples who were born therefrom, remain
attached thereto, and must one day return thither to be united with our ancestors. This link is
the basis of the ownership of the soil, or better, of sovereignty. It has never been ceded or
extinguished, and co-exists with the sovereignty of the Crown
Select to expand quotesgo said..
"powerful body" "serious matter" etc. Panic stations!
What a load of bull.
Voice can only make representations to the government, and gov. can act or reject as they see fit.
By the way, same as they do now with lobby groups, which is ok by us?
As far as the high court goes, you can take matters there if you have been wronged so nothing new there.
Seems like the No side resorting to misinformation and fear mongering?
Your comments are quite ignorant. I apologise for the term but it is what they are.
Making representations in a legal sense is a very strong terminology. To have the term "representation" in a Constitution is very very powerful. You would understand this if you understood the role of the High Court.
Lobby groups and Trade Unions have some power over political Parties. That is bad I agree, but you can vote out the politicians every few years. But the Constitution has power over Parliment, over our laws and over everything we do.
You cannot just take matters to the High Court "if you have been wronged". The High Court presides over matters to do with the ways our laws are interpreted and applied. If there is a question over the application of a law or legislation or the way our government runs, then the High Court can be asked to rule on it. To do this the High Court refers to our highest Government document. The Constitution.
The constitution overrides all laws and legislation. If the High Court rules that the constituion means X, Australia and it's Parliment must do X. There is no appeal. If you don't like it you have to again change the constitution. Good luck with that.
It is incredibly dangerous and incredibly stupid to change the Constitution on a whim or for ideological purposes.
Unfortunately the lies and missinformation is not coming from those saying no, it is coming from those saying the voice is minor, means nothing and will magically fix all the issues politicians have created so far.
I apologise for my ignorance. After reading your response I now understand that we shouldn't mess with the constitution on a whim.
It is best that we disregard those that asked for voice, and there's no reason to try and improve things by listening to those affected. We've done such a great job in my lifetime so best leave things as they are.
Thanks for clearing all that up for me.
Select to expand quoteFormulaNova said..Sublime said..
'Cause the devil's in the details
3. The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws with respect to
matters relating to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, including its composition,
functions, powers and procedures.
It doesn't assign any power to this new group, it just says it can make representations. The actual implementation has to be done by parliament, and have you ever seen anything go through parliament easily if its complex?
Perhaps have a better read of nom 3.
Whilst it will initially be advisory only, the government can create laws that relate directly to what the voice can do, and what role they will play. It quite clearly says that they may through law be granted power, and how they function may also be changed.
the devil (maybe) actually be in the detail. You can hope for the best, but time on earth so far has taught me to expect the worst.
Select to expand quoteSubsonic said..FormulaNova said..Sublime said..
'Cause the devil's in the details
3. The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws with respect to
matters relating to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, including its composition,
functions, powers and procedures.
It doesn't assign any power to this new group, it just says it can make representations. The actual implementation has to be done by parliament, and have you ever seen anything go through parliament easily if its complex?
Perhaps have a better read of nom 3.
Whilst it will initially be advisory only, the government can create laws that relate directly to what the voice can do, and what role they will play. It quite clearly says that they may through law be granted power, and how they function may also be changed.
the devil (maybe) actually be in the detail. You can hope for the best, but time on earth so far has taught me to expect the worst.
I concur
Select to expand quotesgo said..
I apologise for my ignorance. After reading your response I now understand that we shouldn't mess with the constitution on a whim.
It is best that we disregard those that asked for voice, and there's no reason to try and improve things by listening to those affected. We've done such a great job in my lifetime so best leave things as they are.
Thanks for clearing all that up for me.
See and that is an even worse statement.
What makes you think people who oppose having a constituion that grants some citizens significant unwarranted power over the rest, also think that there should be no effort to improve the lives of any Australian or community who is having difficulty, no matter their DNA?
To claim that because we disagree on one aspect, I therefore am an uncaring monster is unbelievably narcissistic. Especially seeing as so many indigenous also reject the Voice.
The voice legislation does not need a change to the constitution. Any government can enact it. It can be done tomorrow. If it is to be such a game changer and purely advisory with no teeth, then why did this government not simply get on with enacting it and once established and working, then seek to enshrine it in the constitution. or just leave it to do its good?
This referendum will fail because this government is treating the Australian people like idiots. I suspect it will also herald the end of Albanese.
