If Yes get the vote clarification question

Select to expand quote

FormulaNova said..

cammd said..

Chris 249 said..

FormulaNova said..

Chris 249 said..

The funny thing about the anti-Yes posters here is that they don't seem to be able to actually do their own research.

Yes they do and here it is:





I feel obliged to point out that these views are crazy and they are not mine. It's just a social media post that people are referring to for their source of 'research'. I have to say I cringe when I read 'your sitting back...'.

It's pathetic and bizarre, isn't it. They are too gullible to actually read what the document referred to is all about, and that no one says that the Voice will make any of these recommendations.

We don't know what representations the Voice will make, we don't know how the representations will be made, we don't know how binding those representations will be on the parliament, we don't know how the people who make up the Voice will come to be there, we don't know if they can be removed, we don't know how many there will be. We do not know any detail on how it will operate

We do know the Uluru Statement from the heart has three objectives Voice, Treaty, Truth. We do know the voice is step one, its a matter of public record. We do know from the same public records some of the authors of the Uluru statement want reparations, we do know they want Aboriginal Soveriengty, we do know they want every one to pay the rent. We do know they want a transfer of power. Theses are matters of public record.

We do know that the constitution is the most important document in the country, what it says over rules anything parliament says or does and we know that The High court interprets it but we don't know how it will be interpreted by the High court.

We also know that if we get the constitution wrong it would be nigh impossible to undo.

We can read the wording to be used in the constitution. We can make up anything after that, negative or positive. Yes, a rogue group of politicians can dominate parliament and vote in 50% tax rates, land grabs, royalties for everything, water and mineral rights, all sorts of things.

But how likely is that? They could just as easily vote for Tasmania to become a separate republic.

Its very likely that people with a goal, given the means to achieve that goal will act to achieve that goal. Sorry to state the obvious.

So if the goal is a treaty, which it is, than expect a treaty will be pursued, if the goals of that treaty are reparations and land rights and control of resources and a transfer of power and sovereignty than expect those goals to be pursed. How could you not expect those things to be pursued when they have been publicly stated by the Voice advocates over many years.

Select to expand quote

cammd said..

Chris 249 said..

FormulaNova said..

Chris 249 said..

The funny thing about the anti-Yes posters here is that they don't seem to be able to actually do their own research.

Yes they do and here it is:





I feel obliged to point out that these views are crazy and they are not mine. It's just a social media post that people are referring to for their source of 'research'. I have to say I cringe when I read 'your sitting back...'.

It's pathetic and bizarre, isn't it. They are too gullible to actually read what the document referred to is all about, and that no one says that the Voice will make any of these recommendations.

We don't know what representations the Voice will make, we don't know how the representations will be made, we don't know how binding those representations will be on the parliament, we don't know how the people who make up the Voice will come to be there, we don't know if they can be removed, we don't know how many there will be. We do not know any detail on how it will operate

We do know the Uluru Statement from the heart has three objectives Voice, Treaty, Truth. We do know the voice is step one, its a matter of public record. We do know from the same public records some of the authors of the Uluru statement want reparations, we do know they want Aboriginal Soveriengty, we do know they want every one to pay the rent. We do know they want a transfer of power. Theses are matters of public record.

We do know that the constitution is the most important document in the country, what it says over rules anything parliament says or does and we know that The High court interprets it but we don't know how it will be interpreted by the High court.

We also know that if we get the constitution wrong it would be nigh impossible to undo.

Much of what you say is true, but that doesn't mean that the lies in the poster above are true. I think many of us here respect the fact that one can perfectly reasonably make a decision to vote No; I certainly do. What many of us object to are the blatant lies coming from many "No" advocates here, and some "Yes" advocates in other places.

As an example, as noted above I share some of the concerns that Aronsay has, but that doesn't mean that Paradox's lie about what Aronsay says is true. Reasonable discussion like yours is fine by me, but the lies from people who share your view aren't.

It's probably an exaggeration, by the way, to say that it will be "nigh on impossible" to undo a change. About 20% of referenda are successful. The ones that are supported by both sides are more successful. Most of the referenda that fail are those that are trying to extend government reach. If both sides decide to push for the Voice to be rescinded in another referendum it would very likely get through. Personally I don't think the Voice will get up and I don't think either side has made their case very well.

Basically my point is that democracy needs truth, not lies, and we need to call out the liars to protect democracy.

Select to expand quote

cammd said...


Its very likely that people with a goal, given the means to achieve that goal will act to achieve that goal. Sorry to state the obvious.

So if the goal is a treaty, which it is, than expect a treaty will be pursued, if the goals of that treaty are reparations and land rights and control of resources and a transfer of power and sovereignty than expect those goals to be pursed. How could you not expect those things to be pursued when they have been publicly stated by the Voice advocates over many years.

Very true.

But just because one group/advocacy organisation is pursuing a set of goals does not automatically mean those goals are realized to their fullest extent as some commenters here are scaremongering about.

Just think of how hard it is for change to be realized in less controversial issues such as health care and education

So more than 70 university law professers have written a letter to the Aust public saying that the voice is " not constitutionally risky"
They are not taking a position but want the public to be able to make an informed position.
Did the "no" campaigners here miss that memo or do they just know better?
I just don't know which way to go

Select to expand quote

sgo said..
So more than 70 university law professers have written a letter to the Aust public saying that the voice is " not constitutionally risky"
They are not taking a position but want the public to be able to make an informed position.
Did the "no" campaigners here miss that memo or do they just know better?
I just don't know which way to go

There can be a reasonable difference of opinion amongst experts when it comes to Con. Law. My Con. Law professor at UNSW (then as now the #1 law school for undergrads in Oz and one of the best in the world) was George Winterton who was a minimalist because he felt that it was hard to know where changes in the Constitution would end up, which is one reason I share some of the concerns of Aroney. But just doing what anyone should do and Googling a random selection of those names shows that it's a pretty high-powered bunch in general, who have a pretty damn good idea of where this could end up.

One of the names in that list is Prof A.J. Brown from my Environmental Law class years ago. When we were at uni AJ was the plaintiff in a case the Environmental Defenders Office took against a major company throwing excess pollution into coastal rivers with government approval, which is a cause that Seabreezers should believe in. The EDO said that if they lost the case AJ may be found liable for the costs and since as a student he could not pay, he'd never be able to work in law. Despite that scary prospect, AJ went through with it all.

The moral of the story is that there's conspiracy theorists here who rant about big business and government. A J Brown didn't rant about it, he took them on at grave personal risk. A J Brown was incomparably braver and more effective than all the nutjobs here. And AJ - a man who actually took on the government at top level which is something the anti-government ravers here have never done - is for the Voice.

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.

So since Paradox won't answer reasonable questions about this post of his, let's do a recap.

1 - The claim "a representation in a legal sense is a challenge" is utter bollocks. It's gibberish. It's wrong. It's meaningless. The word "representation" does not mean what he claims. He's wrong and doesn't know what he's talking about.*

2- Paradox wants us to "believe constitutional lawyers". Okay, but the only constitutional lawyer in that vid is Aroney. This is the same Nicholas Aroney who has said that religious freedom should include a right to practise sharia law in Australia; "committed Muslims should have the right to practise sharia, or Islamic, law".

Aroney does say that there should be strict restrictions on sharia law - but here's the irony. The guy who is being held up as an expert by people who say we shouldn't have special laws, allowance or rules for different groups is someone who actually says that we SHOULD have special laws, allowances and rules for different groups. He just reckons it's OK if muslims have those special laws and rules.

To use someone who says there should be different laws for different groups of Australians as an authority to say there shouldn't be different laws for different groups of Australians is completely contradictory.


(* Yes, after leaving school at the end of year 10 and working as an apprentice I ended up getting into Australia's law school and spent years working in investigations etc, getting rid of dodgy lawyers, corrupt public servants, helping to kill dodgy companies that were trying to rip the taxpayers off for hundreds of millions, sitting in the sand back of Bourke working with First Nations people, and investigating pedos, war criminals and MSM managers for organisations like the Attorney General. Lots of people don't like lawyers, sometimes for good reason, but I bet none of the whiners here have ever actually done anything productive to take on big rotten businesses, mass murderers and other scum. Even if they wanted to they couldn't, because they are too lay and gullible to know how to run an investigation. Bull****ters talk, real people get in and win.

Also, being an investigative lawyer is fun. You get to jump over fences in the middle of the night, to go where most people can't, and to know the reality behind the front page headlines)

Select to expand quote

Chris 249 said..
...
The moral of the story is that there's conspiracy theorists here who rant about big business and government. A J Brown didn't rant about it, he took them on at grave personal risk. A J Brown was incomparably braver and more effective than all the nutjobs here. And AJ - a man who actually took on the government at top level which is something the anti-government ravers here have never done - is for the Voice.

I think "Conspiracy Liars" is a more accurate term.

Select to expand quote

sgo said..
So more than 70 university law professers have written a letter to the Aust public saying that the voice is " not constitutionally risky"
They are not taking a position but want the public to be able to make an informed position.
Did the "no" campaigners here miss that memo or do they just know better?
I just don't know which way to go

Not all law experts agree its not risky many think the exact opposite, below is some reasons why, I guess we need to make up our own mind and not just listen to the TV or read the "memo"

The Voice Referendum is more than recognition and inserts a new race-based Chapter into the Constitution

It would constitutionalise a race-based lobby group, equipped with a separate bureaucracy, that would give Indigenous citizens the ability to have an additional say on every law and administrative decision, not just those relating specifically to Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders.

The problem with the current model for the Voice comes down to two associated issues:

The unlimited scope of the subject matter with which the Voice can involve itself

"It is difficult to think of an issue that would be beyond the scope of the voice in its proposed form, as surely every law or policy of general application would be considered to be "matters relating to" Indigenous Australians in the same way as they are matters relating to all other Australians."- Lorraine Finlay, Human Rights Commissioner and former constitutional law academic

On January 23 Noel Pearson told Patricia Karvelas on ABC radio: "There is hardly any subject matter that Indigenous people would not be affected by and would not want to provide their advice to parliament."

Indigenous constitutional lawyer Megan Davis, who helped develop the Voice, shares this view. On December 21 last year she was asked on ABC television what issues Indigenous Australians wanted to talk about to parliament through the voice.Davis's answer: "At this point, virtually every issue."

Equality of Citizenship where all Australians should be equal not just before the law, but before those who make the law and those who apply the law.

Consider what this country would look like if this referendum succeeds. Those with the right genetic inheritance - and their descendants for all time - would gain an additional method of influencing politicians and officials that would surpass the normal rights of citizenship. The Voice would be empowered to make race-based representations about all areas of public administration and all new laws.

"The inclusion of the proposed s129 [new Voice chapter in the Constitution] would mean that we become a nation where, whenever we or our ancestors first came to this country, we are not equal"- the late David Jackson AM KC, pre-eminent Constitutional Barrister who had appeared in hundreds of matters in the High Court of Australia

"The Voice contradicts the principle of equality of citizenship that enshrines and binds together our nation. The Voice is based on the principle that we have different constitutional rights depending on our ancestry. We need to think about that as a country. And think whether or not we really want that to happen. The Voice contradicts the principle of equality of citizenship that enshrines and binds together our nation.
As said by Paul Kelly, Editor-at-Large of the Australian newspaper

Racial preference never ends well.

Equality of citizenship is fundamental to what it means to live in a democracy.


As Ray Martin said a few days ago, If you don't know find out what you don't know.

That reminds me history of Nauru. Practicly all natural resources were extracted for Island for free , without compensation. Yes. Mates rates , it was called. But if we multiply tonnes of minerals exported by market price, then NAURU could be still the richest not poorest country in the world. If only money were set aside like Norway do with theirs. More than that. Nauru ecology was devastated by stripping all arable land leading to famine now. History of small island is a bit similar to our big island where all wealth from extracted material "evaporate".Australia is in big financial crisis after the greatest boom in commodities export in recent 20 years.

"Equality of citizenship is fundamental to what it means to live in a democracy."

So you think are all one, and Indigenous people are treated equally now and no need to change?
Yep, best keep things as they are, ignore what a minority have asked for.
Also the constitution you are so precious about now, already has Racism built into it but that hasn't worried anyone for years.

Select to expand quote

sgo said..
"Equality of citizenship is fundamental to what it means to live in a democracy."

So you think are all one, and Indigenous people are treated equally now and no need to change?
Yep, best keep things as they are, ignore what a minority have asked for.
Also the constitution you are so precious about now, already has Racism built into it but that hasn't worried anyone for years.

I don't think all Australians have equality of citizen ship I know they do, it is in writing in the constitution. The 1967 referendum corrected that wrong.

What the Voice proposes to do is re introduce that inequality by creating additional rights for people of a particular ancestors.

Prove me wrong, you can't because the words are clear, the voice is only for Aboriginal and Torres Straight Ilanders.

BTW anyone who doesn't think the constitution is precious is a fool of the dimmest kind, it's the reason why so many people from countries seek to come to Australia, it's what's ensures we remain free FFS.

Select to expand quote

BTW anyone who doesn't think the constitution is precious is a fool of the dimmest kind, it's the reason why so many people from countries seek to come to Australia, it's what's ensures we remain free FFS.

our constitution has nothing to do with freedom or human rights. It sets and defines state and federal government jurisdiction and how the commonwealth operates . It was written to protect each colony's economic and political power after federation, to secure unanimous consent to federation

Select to expand quote

cammd said..

sgo said..
"Equality of citizenship is fundamental to what it means to live in a democracy."

So you think are all one, and Indigenous people are treated equally now and no need to change?
Yep, best keep things as they are, ignore what a minority have asked for.
Also the constitution you are so precious about now, already has Racism built into it but that hasn't worried anyone for years.

I don't think all Australians have equality of citizen ship I know they do, it is in writing in the constitution. The 1967 referendum corrected that wrong.

What the Voice proposes to do is re introduce that inequality by creating additional rights for people of a particular ancestors.

Prove me wrong, you can't because the words are clear, the voice is only for Aboriginal and Torres Straight Ilanders.

BTW anyone who doesn't think the constitution is precious is a fool of the dimmest kind, it's the reason why so many people from countries seek to come to Australia, it's what's ensures we remain free FFS.

"As initially written, s 51(xxvi) empowered the Parliament to make laws with respect to: "The people of any race, other than the aboriginal race in any State, for whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws". The Australian people voting at the 1967 referendum deleted the words in italics."

So we took out a clause that stopped us being racist in any state, and changed it so the gov. could be racist in every state and territory.

Section 51 (xxvi), dealing with Powers of the Parliament, states: "The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to . the people of any race for whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws."

BTW I think when it comes to enshrined freedoms some people confuse American constitutional rights with ours.

Select to expand quote

sgo said..

cammd said..

sgo said..
"Equality of citizenship is fundamental to what it means to live in a democracy."

So you think are all one, and Indigenous people are treated equally now and no need to change?
Yep, best keep things as they are, ignore what a minority have asked for.
Also the constitution you are so precious about now, already has Racism built into it but that hasn't worried anyone for years.

I don't think all Australians have equality of citizen ship I know they do, it is in writing in the constitution. The 1967 referendum corrected that wrong.

What the Voice proposes to do is re introduce that inequality by creating additional rights for people of a particular ancestors.

Prove me wrong, you can't because the words are clear, the voice is only for Aboriginal and Torres Straight Ilanders.

BTW anyone who doesn't think the constitution is precious is a fool of the dimmest kind, it's the reason why so many people from countries seek to come to Australia, it's what's ensures we remain free FFS.

"As initially written, s 51(xxvi) empowered the Parliament to make laws with respect to: "The people of any race, other than the aboriginal race in any State, for whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws". The Australian people voting at the 1967 referendum deleted the words in italics."

So we took out a clause that stopped us being racist in any state, and changed it so the gov. could be racist in every state and territory.

Section 51 (xxvi), dealing with Powers of the Parliament, states: "The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to . the people of any race for whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws."

BTW I think when it comes to enshrined freedoms some people confuse American constitutional rights with ours.

Is that proof Indigenous people don't have equal rights now. Do they have a vote, can they travel overseas, can they start a business. Can they own land.

What rights do they not have access to equally with all other Australians.