-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Indigenous Voice Yes or No?
- Thread starter eZyT
- Start date
Read that. What is the Budget for it ? You have to have Business Plan. otherwise someone gets ripped off. Maybe suggest to The Voice it be absorbed into their current existing budget for Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islanders. plus the Office of Indigenous Australian be abolished.
Have a look at the forward estimates in the federal budget. The budget is in there
All the questions about the Voice above again show a complete and utter ignorance of the question and the constitution.
The referendum question will ask whether we want an indigenous voice to parliament.
The make-up of the voice? To be determined by parliament and likely to change over time.
The budget? To be determined by parliament and will change over time.
Who selects the members? To be determined by parliament and likely to change over time.
These are not questions being asked at the referendum and are a distraction.
The question is simple, do we want an indigenous voice to parliament - yes or no.
DS
The referendum question will ask whether we want an indigenous voice to parliament.
The make-up of the voice? To be determined by parliament and likely to change over time.
The budget? To be determined by parliament and will change over time.
Who selects the members? To be determined by parliament and likely to change over time.
These are not questions being asked at the referendum and are a distraction.
The question is simple, do we want an indigenous voice to parliament - yes or no.
DS
They have a Voice Burney. If I want to make a submission to Parliament I have to submit that to my local member or The Minister i/c of that particular portfolio. They want a twenty member Voice plus others sub Voices they see fit to establish. This motion is for the intellects themselves not Jacky Jacky sitting out the back of Bourke, Maisie at Tennant Creek or Harry at Laverton. Actually dreamtime trying to unite the clans. Smells like a Snake oil salesman.
Yeah i had a coffee with old mate who gets his news from sky.
I try not talk politics with him, but he asked all the Voice Sceptic questions, and i patiently answered them all,
Until he had nothing left,
And admitted he was still going to vote NO.
No worries, i say, thats your democratic right,
But i pointed out it wasnt his democractic right to waste my time and make me do a heap of pointless talking just because hes too lazy and apathetic to research his own justifications for keeping black people in their place.
It appears even Peter Dutton knows what you are saying is correct:
Voice advocate says Dutton's public comments are at odds with private meetings
Referendum working group member and Uluru Statement advocate Thomas Mayo says Peter Dutton's comments to the media about the Voice are "disappointing" and do not reflect what he said when he met with the group.
www.abc.net.au
These points have all been addressed with you.
Vote no, that is your right, but engaging with you is a waste of time
Engaging with racists is really playing to the audience, it is the people who are undecided who may listen to what different people are saying. I know you cannot influence those who have already made up their minds.
DS
I think I am moving from “Probably yes” to “Don’t know”. I’m becoming increasingly concerned about the scope of the Voice.
We only hear references to a “Voice to Parliament” from politicians/media/spokespeople etc, but in fact the wording proposed is “Voice to Parliament and the Executive Government”. There has been little discussion of this. The Age has reported that the working Group is currently discussing whether the Voice will be entitled to advise Cabinet. Pro-Voice lawyers are warning this will open the door to repeated appeals to the High Court. As a lawyer, this has been one of my key concerns - meaning that legislating and decision-making will be bogged down. And of course, “Executive Government” extends well beyond Cabinet.
I think most people believe they’ll be voting on a Voice to Parliament, advising on proposed legislation, certainly not on policy and decision-making across Cabinet and the whole public service.
We only hear references to a “Voice to Parliament” from politicians/media/spokespeople etc, but in fact the wording proposed is “Voice to Parliament and the Executive Government”. There has been little discussion of this. The Age has reported that the working Group is currently discussing whether the Voice will be entitled to advise Cabinet. Pro-Voice lawyers are warning this will open the door to repeated appeals to the High Court. As a lawyer, this has been one of my key concerns - meaning that legislating and decision-making will be bogged down. And of course, “Executive Government” extends well beyond Cabinet.
I think most people believe they’ll be voting on a Voice to Parliament, advising on proposed legislation, certainly not on policy and decision-making across Cabinet and the whole public service.
Hey, we all believe we are exercising good faith when we post. Can we please credit other people with the same? They may just be wrong, not stupid/evil/bigoted. Or they may just disagree with us for well-founded reasons.
I don't quite grasp the issue. The Voice will advise. It cannot mandate. What can it appeal?
Advising the people actually writing the laws as well as the politicians makes perfect sense to me
Sorry, but if a poster is outright racist in their views, comments, slurs, repeatedly even when called on it, then doubles down with the racists posts, there shouldn't be any issue with other posters calling that out.
Can't see the problem. They can provide advice, and the parliament and/or the executive retains the power to ignore any advice.
I see no grounds for an appeal to any court.
A voice should be able to advise the executive, which in the constitution would presumably be the GG in Council as cabinet is certainly not mentioned, so I'm really not seeing a legal problem here. In fact, if the voice is advising cabinet specifically this would not be a constitutional matter given cabinet is not mentioned.
The executive acts on a lot of matters and has a lot of control over parliament in a Westminster system, so cutting a voice out of providing advice to the executive makes it a lot less effective. I would be disappointed if the voice does not have a role in advising the executive government.
DS
You read all his posts? He’s a disingenuous racist *smile*. If you can’t work that out I can’t help you.
Don’t speak for me by the way. We all believe?
I suppose you also believe Goodes was booed because he staged for frees?
