If Yes get the vote clarification question

The idea of the voice is in the constitution to make it more or less permanent, difficult to remove at the whim of governments.

All the details: powers, functions etc etc can all be set or altered by any current government, and that is answerable to the people at elections.

No need to panic.

Select to expand quote

Paradox said..

Impossible to remove by government no matter how poorly it performs or problems it causes. All it does is set up the potential for a massive, corrupt bureaucracy that cannot be removed.

Everyone wants to help disadvantaged Australians, and every major party has it as a policy, so why would any government want to remove something that was working? All this does is stop any government from removing something that is not working.

Again, anyone who votes for this in hope it will fix anything is deluded. A legislated voice with no constitutional backing can possibly fix things and if it does no one will change it. Making it constitutional will only remove the possibily of removing it if it doesn't work.

No. sgo is right. You are doing the whole "sky is falling" thing. Snap out of it.

If the voice gets out of hand, any government can alter it down to one dude at his desk down in the basement with not enough budget for coffees.
No constitutional changes required.
Its all in the detail.
Don't panic.

Select to expand quote

cisco said..


Using the indigenous peoples issue is the classic communist party tactic for bringing down democracys. Check the background of the Yes leaders and you will find they are dyed in the wool communists.

Utter rubbish. Julian Leeser, for example, is a LIBERAL party MP, former shadow minister under Dutton, and lawyer who was advisor to Abbott and Ruddock. He worked for the Menzies Centre, a think tank designed to "promote the principles of individual liberty, free speech, competitive enterprise, limited government and democracy". He's clearly a leader of the Yes vote and no reasonable person could call him a commie.

Damien Freeman, another Yes vote leader and lawyer, is another supporter of Tony Abbott, someone he championed in his history of the Liberal Party. Calling him a commie is complete bull****.

Ken Wyatt is another board member of the organisation founded by Freeman and Leeser to support the Yes vote. Abbott chose him to be a LIBERAL minister.

If you think these LIBERALs who worked with Abbott are communists then you have no idea what a communist is.

Select to expand quote

Paradox said..

sgo said..
If the voice gets out of hand, any government can alter it down to one dude at his desk down in the basement with not enough budget for coffees.
No constitutional changes required.
Its all in the detail.
Don't panic.

So you think if a government effectively kills the Voice through legislation, it will no longer exist????

Sorry but you have no clue. It is constituted, how many times do I have to say this. It will have a higher power to exist than the government of the day and it is backed by the High Court.

All it takes is a challenge to the high court and the government will be directed to reestablish the bureaucracy exactly how whoever pretends to represent all indegenous peoples want it.

It is constituted and has the power to challenge any aspect of Parliment, State or Federal Government, State and Federal agencies, Local government and local government bodies and agencies. The voice can make representations to the rural fire brigade. It can interfere with the state gov departments of agriculture and primary industries, transport, housing. It can make representations to any level of government entity and challenge them in the high court if they do not listen.


If people cannot see the potential issues with that we are lost.

So where is your evidence for any of that? Under what constitutional precedent or section will the High Court somehow get the power to direct a government "to reestablish the bureaucracy exactly how whoever pretends to represent all indigenous peoples want it"?

The referendum requires the government to make laws about the functions and powers of the Voice. That allows the government to shrink the Voice as they see fit.

Under what standing can the Voice challenge any decision? What precedent are you relying on? What section of the Constitution will allow such things to happen?

I did not say the voice would not exist, it's that dude down in the basement, with no power if that's what the government wants.
No need for constitutional reform.
Stop panicking.

Your whole argument seems to be based on your belief on what the high court "will do". That's a good insight to possess.

Perhaps the high court might come up with their own ruling that doesn't fit your scenario , after all they may be better qualified and sensible than some of us.

Select to expand quote

cisco said..

Chris 249 said..
Utter rubbish.

Oh really???
onevoiceaustralia.com.au/blog/f/marcia-langton

Langton was a member of the National Committee of the Communist League (CL), a Trotskyist group that campaigned for the violent overthrow of the Australian government and the implementation of a totalitarian state.Marcia Langton's views are recognised to be extreme, and she has been the focus of an undercover ASIO operation. Langton has been described by the Trotskyist Newspaper Direct Action as 'one of the best-known black communist activists in Australia':

dailydeclaration.org.au/2023/06/23/communist-sympathies-of-voice-campaigner-thomas-mayo/

The Voice to Parliament's "Yes" campaign has already hit turbulence following revelations one of its chief campaigners, Thomas Mayo, has strong communist sympathies.This week, videos were unearthed of Mayo speaking at online forums of the Search Foundation, established in 1990 as the successor to the Communist Party of Australia, as well as at in-person Invasion Day and Black Lives Matter rallies.In one such clip, the union official and self-described "militant" pays his respects to "the elders of the Communist Party who I think without a doubt have played a very important role in our activism".

www.advanceaustralia.org.au/comrades_albo_and_his_buddy_adam_bandt_two_red_peas_in_a_pod

Yes, complete rubbish. Your statement was clear; "Check the background of the Yes leaders and you will find they are dyed in the wool communists.'

The three Liberals I mentioned are "Yes leaders". You said the "Yes leaders" are communists. You are quite simply wrong and spouting rubbish. People like Wyatt, Leeser and Freeman are NOT communists but they ARE "Yes leaders" and your claim was bull****.

You did NOT say that some "Yes leaders" are said to be communists. You said that "the Yes leaders" - that means all of them - are communists. The truth is that "Yes leaders" include a former Liberal minister and a former Liberal shadow minister. Your claim is complete rubbish and you should have the honesty to retract it.

Select to expand quote

Paradox said..

Chris 249 said..

So where is your evidence for any of that? Under what constitutional precedent or section will the High Court somehow get the power to direct a government "to reestablish the bureaucracy exactly how whoever pretends to represent all indigenous peoples want it"?

The referendum requires the government to make laws about the functions and powers of the Voice. That allows the government to shrink the Voice as they see fit.

Under what standing can the Voice challenge any decision? What precedent are you relying on? What section of the Constitution will allow such things to happen?

The Court derives its authority directly from the Constitution and has two main functions: first, to interpret the Australian Constitution and, secondly, to sit as the final Court of Appeal on all matters arising in Federal, State and Territory courts.

I agree the High Court itself cannot direct the Government to do anything. But it can rule that any legislation (ie Voice is effectively removed) is unconsitutional. The Parliment and Gov of the day can ignore this ruling, but in reality the populace will not stand for it. A Government not abiding by a High Court decision directly related to the consitution would never survive a term and would likely be removed from office by the Governer General.

If a Gov made the voice a dude in a basement, the High Court would look at the intent of the amendment and rule that the intent was for a fully functioning voice that represents all indigenous Australians and a suitable agency must be in place to deliver that. Dude in basement doesn't cut it.

Governments do no ignore high Court decisions on constitutional matters. To have to rely on a Government to take such extreme measures to fix a broken bureaucracy speaks of denial it is an issue.
The Voice can make representations (ie challenge or demand) anything that is being considered by Parliment or any level of government Bureaucracy be it Federal, State or local. If the challenge or demand is ignored then they can take action in the high court.

The voice cannot force its view directly, but it can effectively slow or stop progress on an issue through court challenges and subsequent follow up similar representations. This forces a negotiation to occur. It will be used to blackmail every level of government though nuisance representations and court action.

Recently we saw an issue in WA with farmers not being able to plow thier fields without consultation. In SA last month the disposal of medical waste at a dedicated facility was stopped by court action. You think that is going to get more or less prevelant?

So you appear to have no evidence for your claims. I asked you to provide the answers to some specific questions and instead you've thrown around things that appear to make it pretty clear you don't have actual answers.

You also missed the fact that your own post is contradictory. You said "the High Court would look at the intent of the amendment" (and it's vital to say that it does NOT do so except in certain limited situations) but in this case the intent is very clear. The amendment quite clearly says that "the Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws with respect to the composition, functions, powers and procedures of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice."

THAT is the clear intent - parliament decides the powers, composition, function and procedures. If the parliament decides that the function of the Voice is to be one guy in a basement, that's what happens, because the very clear intent is that parliament gets to decide that stuff.

You keep on referring to court challenges but refuse to answer the clear question I asked - where does it get the standing? No one can just walk up to the High Court and challenge.

The Voice cannot make a representation to state or local governments (or no more than you or I or a union, church or employer's body can) The Voice is a Federal government creation and the Federal government only has power over the areas listed in s 51 and s 52 of the Constitution. It doesn't control other areas unless the states agree to it.

So to repeat the simple questions I asked earlier;

Under what standing can the Voice challenge any decision? Are you referring to standing to challenge certiorari and prohibition? There's already open standing there. Are you referring to writs of mandamus? Indigenous groups already have wide powers of standing under the special interest rule. Standing under the ADJR is also wide already.

So what are you claiming will increase powers to challenge decisions?

What precedent are you relying on?

What section of the Constitution will allow such things to happen?

Select to expand quote

The Uluru Statement clearly outlines Self Determination, Treaty, Reparations in perpetuity based in GDP, recovery of stolen land, access to water, land and mineral rights.

I'm interested where you found this clearly outlined in the Uluru Statement from the heart?

Select to expand quote

D3 said..

The Uluru Statement clearly outlines Self Determination, Treaty, Reparations in perpetuity based in GDP, recovery of stolen land, access to water, land and mineral rights.

I'm interested where you found this clearly outlined in the Uluru Statement from the heart?

Frankly I am interested in how you cannot find it. You didn't believe the missinformation that there was not a 26 page document titled The Uluru Statement From The Heart did you? RMIT / ABC factcheckers were suspended from Meta and other platforms for that blatent lie.

Page 16: "Note: The shaded sections of text in the following pages are extracts from the Uluru Statement from the Heart"

Self Determination: Page 24 and Page 30
Treaty: Page 21 and Page 31
Reparations: Page 26 and Page 31

www.referendumcouncil.org.au/sites/default/files/report_attachments/Referendum_Council_Final_Report.pdf?fbclid=IwAR0xM19OJG-8Eh5XmGd-mnmaZOJr0N-n2ljVlDyqg0WjPtQP5zG9tH_QfXQ

Select to expand quote

Paradox said..

remery said..

Sky News ? !

A Professor of Constitutional Law and a Barrister. What does the media platform they are on have anything to do with thier expertise? Does expert opinion only count if it is your favourite channel?

I think the suggestion is that presenting a piece on different media channels has a certain bias. E.g. something shown on the ABC will show things in a certain light and things shown on skynews will show them in a different light. Someone might think that something shown on the ABC is based on 'commies wanting to dismantle democracys*' and something shown on sky might be a bit more right wing.

I think you know that if you want to present a certain opinion you can cherry-pick someone that shows the opinion you want to express, even if it is incredibly boring such as in this example from skynews. I watched/listened to that video two times and each time I vagued out, so I think it would only appeal to someone that already agrees to whatever that guy said.

Select to expand quote

Paradox said..
Well, yes expert legal opinions can certainly be boring. Are you suggesting you only listen to experts who entertain you and engage you emotionally?

Yes. Generally because someone that knows their topic well and is confident in the telling of it, actually understands it. When they waffle and are vague about it, right or wrong, it detracts from their perceived knowledge.

Select to expand quote

Paradox said..I do note that is mostly the approach the YES campaing is taking rather than any sort of substantive discorse on exactly how it will deliver the outcomes being promised. It is largely a guilt campaign that we have failed and this harmless, benign, modest magic pill will make all the difference and take your guilt away.

What the boring expert opinion does is underpin the views I have expressed here. They are not baseless as was suggested.

The arguement from the negative side seems to be things could/maybe/probably/may happen.

Sadly some of them seem to be insulting towards the people it is targetted to help, which sort of suggests that it is actually needed. I mean, if you label someone as stone aged peoples who can't manage themselves, how can you then stand back and say they don't need special help?

Select to expand quote

Paradox said..

Chris 249 said..

Under what standing can the Voice challenge any decision?

You are forgetting that a representation in a legal sense is a challenge. So the answer is as constitutionally enshrined as "representations" to any decision made by any level of government.
This link from a few hours ago discusses this toward the end. Don't believe me, believe constitutional lawyers.

I'm not "forgetting that a representation in a legal sense is a challenge" - such a claim is wrong and meaningless. What on earth is "a representation in a legal sense"????

Your claims are misleading. For example, Clegg (one of the lawyers in your link) is not really a "constiutional lawyer" as such, nor is she unbiased (she's married to a former Liberal minister). Her views are basically no more relevant than, for example, those of the pro-voice lawyer I was talking to this weekend.

Aronsay is definitely an expert in the field but he's also got a record of having certain views on the federal government, as shown by his criticism of the Engineers' case in the ALJ. More importantly, your claims about what Aronsay says are (to be more tactful) very misleading. You used him as evidence for your claim that the Voice "can effectively slow or stop progress on an issue through court challenges and subsequent follow up similar representations." Aronsay does NOT say that. He says "it's quite arguable" that the High Court could decide that the representations made by the Voice will be seen to be mandatory considerations for admininstrative decision makers to take note, but he does NOT - repeat NOT - say that it will do so.

It is utterly wrong to say that something that could possibly occur WILL occur. It is a rubbish to say that the fact that some constitutional law experts say that the Voice could raise challenges means that they "can" raise challenges as if that it a fact.

You also completely ignored the fact that Aronsay - the person you used as evidence - says that the admin law remedies are already used all the time. So I ask again - how can you state that the Voice will significantly (if at all) effect standing on certiorari, prohibition, mandamus or the ADJR?

You also appear to be ignoring the fact that, as Aronson and Groves (who basically wrote the book on this subject) say, there's been a trend towards affording procedural fairness anyway, particularly since Saeed. So why are you implying the Voice will be a major change?

YOU are telling us how fed. con. and admin. law works - so please start answering some questions to prove that you know what you are talking about.

By the way - and this is very relevant - do you believe that there should be a right to practice Muslim sharia law in Australia?

Select to expand quote

Chris 249 said..

By the way - and this is very relevant - do you believe that there should be a right to practice Muslim sharia law in Australia?

Okay, if no one else bites, where is this leading?