Further Effects of "The Voice" debate

[Jerry_Atrick]

19 hours ago, red750 said:

When Albo releases, then we may be able to research properly.

 

Like the menu that said "Food".

When asked for details, the waiter said, "It's good for you and you'll like it. Can't tell you more."

When Albo releases what, exactly?

 

Read what is already released - the actual proposed wording of change to the constitution. Then let's look at defence. The establishment and operastion of the defence force is extensive and complex - as are most countries. Everything thing from what the defence forces do, to twhat pwoers they have, what laws they are subject to, what the structure is, etc etc. Not many people would argue that it is indeed something that a written constitutution should address and provide enough detail to allow governing the defence of the realm to be within with enough detail to guide the government, the forces, and the courts in applying laws.

 

Section 51 (vi) deals with the defence powers oif the Commonwealth of Australia, and contains the following wording:

"(vi) the naval and military defence of the Commonwealth and of the several States, and the control of the
forces to execute and maintain the laws of the Commonwealth"

 

That is it! Now, if Australia had no defence and we were voting on allowing the government the constutional right as the sole organisation with power to establish and operate a defence force, would that be enough for you? Or would you vote no to that, too.

 

By the way, most powers and obliogations are similarly vague.

 

The constituion establishes powers and obligations at a high level; and establishes overarching requirements around the law making process. Our elected representatives are then responsible for establishing the laws in those areas and they change as society changes and pollies change.

 

The wording of the voice places restrictions on what it can do... Unless you want to vote on a detailed act of parliament, it is one of the more detailed entries you will see in the constution.

 

The LNP and No Campaigners are using disingenupus and false claims to promote an ideology - of what - continued oppression of indigenous Australians. Another shameful chapter in Aussie politics.

Edited July 20, 2023 by Jerry_Atrick

[Old Koreelah]

Sad to realise that many voters still beleve Dutton and the crew who brought us Robodebts and the most blatant rorts. The No campaign is obviously being well-funded by the rich end of town and overseas-owned corporations (who rip huge profits out of this country but pay no tax!)

What hope for Australia?

[facthunter]

Not much while we have things like the current Murdoch influence particularly in Queensland..  Nev

[old man emu]

Just as an aside, it amazes me that Queensland is so one-sided on the Two-Party system (21:5). In NSW it is 24:22. I would have thought that most States it would be closer to half and half. Last election produced odd results compared to elections past, but that was probably the ScoMO effect.

 

The next time the Voice of the People will be heard is in the Referendum. Referenda never really reflect Party alliance. I think the questions they put to the people at more courtroom oratory rather than public bar straight talk. Also this referendum is tainted by the electorate's distrust of all politicians. And if the Voice was going to be such a great thing for Aboriginal people, why are some of its greatest critics the very people whose lives it is supposed to improve?

[onetrack]

The W.A. Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act has caused outrage across a wide section of the W.A. population and is bound to affect the Voice vote. This piece of draconian legislation is over-reach on an astounding scale and it affects 95% of West Australians and is going to lead to another massive, interfering "aboriginal" bureaucracy that is only going to raise costs for almost every West Australian.

 

The full effect of this divisive and costly legislation, introduced with virtually no community consultation, is yet to be felt - and I'll wager it will seriously affect the Labor vote in W.A.'s next election.

[Old Koreelah]

12 minutes ago, old man emu said:

And if the Voice was going to be such a great thing for Aboriginal people, why are some of its greatest critics the very people whose lives it is supposed to improve?

Because they want more, much more.

Some want autonomy, others a Treaty (as promised by Hawke).

How do you make treaty with 255 separate groups?

 

Meanwhile, why is nobody comparing this proposal to NZ, where, for 150 years, they’ve had seats in Parliament reserved for Maori? That doesn’t seem to have caused any damage to their democracy.

[facthunter]

There's not a great% of the aborigines would vote against it. There's plenty of them know little about it. Those who are vocally against it want SOVEREIGN Rights and some of their antics doesn't enamour a lot of people because it's hostile and confronting and even disrespectful of a lot of Australians, who in better circumstances might be  more willing to  go along with it..  My last few trips to the North and West I get the feeling of "WE hate your Guts white Fella" is becoming the norm.. THAT will only worsen the situation. We cant Have a version of apartheid. Kids are born EQUAL. Thats why I hate Royalty and alleged CLASS.. and filthy rich people having all the say.  Nev

[pmccarthy]

The Roman occupation of Britain lasted 400 years, but in the end they left. Perhaps that is the long-term plan.

[willedoo]

1 hour ago, old man emu said:

Just as an aside, it amazes me that Queensland is so one-sided on the Two-Party system (21:5).

It is odd when you take into account that on a state basis, the LNP has had two brief stints in government of five years total out of the last 34 years. In state elections, the LNP picks up the obvious rural vote, small business and electorates of retired Victorians, but nowhere near enough to win government. I can never figure out why Labor does so bad federally in Queensland. It's always been one of those states where federal and state issues are separate at election time, so that might have some bearing.

[Old Koreelah]

1 minute ago, willedoo said:

It is odd when you take into account that on a state basis, the LNP has had two brief stints in government of five years total out of the last 34 years. In state elections, the LNP picks up the obvious rural vote, small business and electorates of retired Victorians, but nowhere near enough to win government. I can never figure out why Labor does so bad federally in Queensland. It's always been one of those states where federal and state issues are separate at election time, so that might have some bearing.

One possible reason is how state politicians north of the border always play the “putting Queensland first” card.

[Old Koreelah]

48 minutes ago, pmccarthy said:

The Roman occupation of Britain lasted 400 years, but in the end they left. Perhaps that is the long-term plan.

Not likely to happen, when so many of us are 5 or six generations in this country. Reminds me of the cartoon of an old Native American getting all excited about the Apollo program; he though all the white fellas were gonna bugger off his land and go to the moon.

[willedoo]

5 minutes ago, Old Koreelah said:

One possible reason is how state politicians north of the border always play the “putting Queensland first” card.

Could be. The major reason for the LNP failing in Queensland on a state election basis is that they are a fairly hopeless mob. Well intentioned, but lacking talent in their ranks and any sensible policies that would appeal to voters. They come from a born to rule mentality background and still haven't transitioned to the concept of having to earn votes. Way back before the Joh days, Queensland state governments were Labor for a lot of years as well. In those days, there was a big population of rural employed workers to vote Labor. With those jobs dying out, the rural electorates are mainly conservative now.

 

On a federal basis, Queensland is heavily influenced by what's happening federally. When Bill Shorten blew the election before last, Qld. mine workers who had voted Labor all their lives turned against Labor. A lot of people didn't like Shorten or his policies. Federally, Queensland is a big problem for the Labor party.

[octave]

(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.

 

I am not particularly knowledgeable about constitutional law however I do like to think I am able to seek out and understand the opinions of those who are.    I am more than happy to consider arguments that are well-presented but I don't like my intellect being insulted by the argument that "if you do not know you should vote No.   Anyone who uses this argument to justify their vote seems pretty pathetic to me.

 

Appeals based on fear are not persuasive to me. The invoking of "apartheid"  is ridiculous.     If anyone can read the actual referendum question and explain to me how this equates the apartheid I will be happy to consider the argument.   Canada has an indigenous advisory committee. New Zealand has Maori parliament seats and Norway and Finland have the Saami parliament to advise the government. These countries are not basket cases. Don't fall for the scare campaign. In fact, NZ, Finland, and Norway score higher on the "happiness index" than Australia.  This could be disputed but clearly, it hasn't made life unbearable in these countries, has it????? 

 

Apart from the pros and cons argument sometimes it is interesting to be curious about those who support one side or the other.    If I were for a no vote (which I am not) I would be pretty embarrassed by those who are putting money into the no case.   

 Indigenous voice: no campaign’s deep links to conservative Christian politics revealed

 

It does require a rigorous level of persuasion to convince me of an argument where the main protagonists are The Institute of Public Affairs, Sky News (Bolt et al) Pauline Hanson, and others of the far right and other conservative groups.   Mainstream churches are for the yes case however evangelicals are against it.  I do not want to align with these people and organizations.  

 

Those who are against on this forum have been pretty lame at providing a strong no-case argument. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[octave]

Oh no Norway and Finland will be ruined

 

Sámi Parliament of Norway

 

And what about poor Canada

 

Indigenous Advisory Committee

 

Oh no, what will become of Canada? 

 

Māori electorates

 

NZ mm strange that they suffer under the oppressive yoke of a Maori parliament and yet seem happy enough. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[willedoo]

Well said, octave. It will take more than an indigenous advisory body with no power of veto to make the sky fall in.

[Jerry_Atrick]

Love the way "conservatives" (aka the rigfht wing nut jobs - not rational conservatives)  use titles of their organisations that are the antithesis of the objectives of those organisations. There was an article either on the ABC or Guardian that exposed the operating model of these organisations through some handbook or something stating basically tell them the opposite of what we think to get them on side and slowly bring them around to our way of thinking.

 

The are consumate manipulators. And they now have such a foothold that the MSM that aren't beholden to them tread softly-softly so as to provide a "balanced" view, rather than call them out.

 

[willedoo]

22 minutes ago, octave said:

Sámi Parliament of Norway

If you want to watch a good quirky foreign language movie, the Russian movie 'Cuckoo' is a good one. Set in WW2 in Finland, it's a humorous drama based on a love (or lust) triangle between a Russian army officer, a Sámi woman, and a Finnish army sniper (cuckoo is a slang term for a sniper). The majority of the movie is just those three characters living at the Sámi woman's remote farmhouse. None of them speak each other's language, but seem to be able to communicate and get by. Being a Russian movie, the Russian speaker is not subtitled, but it has Finnish and Sámi subtitles for the respective characters. If you don't speak any of those languages, it's still reasonably easy to figure out what's going on.

[willedoo]

7 minutes ago, Jerry_Atrick said:

The are consumate manipulators. And they now have such a foothold that the MSM that aren't beholden to them tread softly-softly so as to provide a "balanced" view, rather than call them out.

It reminds me of psyops. Some of the presenters on Sky have a delivery manner that has some resemblance to the way evangelists work people. I don't know if you would call it gaslighting, but they use their words in a way that looks very much like a brainwashing attempt on the gullible.

[facthunter]

The AEC is NOT going to fact check them but lying to Parliament  is supposed to be a heinous crime? Why also is it called Coward's Castle where you CAN'T  be sued for ANYTHING you say..   Nev

[willedoo]

10 minutes ago, facthunter said:

The AEC is NOT going to fact check them but lying to Parliament  is supposed to be a heinous crime? Why also is it called Coward's Castle where you CAN'T  be sued for ANYTHING you say..   Nev

I must admit I fully agree with the concept of parliamentary privilege. You can't have a robust, vibrant democracy if the lawmakers in parliament are too scared to speak up. The freedom to speak in parliament without fear of legal action is fundamental to our democracy. It probably stems from the Cromwell vs Charles 1st. era. For sure, a lot of pollies abuse the privilege, but we'd be in deep shite without it.

[facthunter]

I'm ONLY pointing out the hypocrisy and IRONY.  Nev

[octave]

I am waiting in great expectation for an INTELECTUAL  argument against the flimsiest change to the constitution.  It won't come because it is BS

 

[octave]

Still waiting.  My point is that this change if anything thing too minimal,  C'man tell me how this will wreck the country. It would be preferable if you didn't quote evangelical Christian groups, US conservative groups, or right-wing think tanks.  I can tell you that I am open-minded but I will not settle for "derp I don't know what might happen so I can't vote for it, cus i do not have the intellectual capacity to research the implications myself" 

 

Give me meaningful factual well-researched arguments of f^^^ off"

 

[Bruce Tuncks]

Good reasons for voting yes guys. I too don't want to side with conservative religious types.....   BUT   I still want a concrete example of how the thing would work to help the abos.

So far, they only seem to have used their ( considerable) power to thwart white progress. I see the stalled road to ararat and read that it is forbidden to climb rocks in the grampians!

What good can it possibly do to the abos to stop stupid whitefellers from rock-climbing?

In the meantime, I don't give the referendum a hope in hell of passing, and I just wish that we could add new questions to the referendum which would have a far better chance of getting the nod.

[octave]

2 minutes ago, Bruce Tuncks said:

Good reasons for voting yes guys. I too don't want to side with conservative religious types.....

 

And yet you will.