Basically everything you have asked and raised has been explained to you and all you have is “woke”
-
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
l think the correct term is an online bully. That's my take on reading all of the post's on this topic.
Coming back to this @HeadandShin. I assume this is the article you read: Legal concerns raised over Voice proposal to speak to cabinet, not just parliament
Reading the full article, the headline really feels like clickbait. One lawyer raised a concern of a possibility, but then others said it's not an issue or that it can easily be mitigated. The main reason in the article that advise to executive is contentious is because the belief is the Coalition doesn't like it.
If you've read a different article, please post the link here because between the one above, and the discussion on Insiders where it was mentioned but they also stated it was dismissed pretty quickly after some debate, doesn't really imply there are real issues or legal concerns with the Voice being able to advise the Executive as well.
I also think being able to advise the government when they are drafting the legislation to table makes sense and would speed up the process. But that's just my personal layman's view.
I bring to your attention where SA Attorney General Kyam Maher has ticked himself off as a Indigenous Australian yet his genealogical tree refutes that. Kyam has also introduced a First Nation Voice Bill into SA parliament based on the same selection criteria as the Federal Voice Bill. Now if this gets the nod, to get on the bandwagon all other States will follow suit. Now Local Councils ?. Who will be the first City Council to Introduce a First Nations Voice into their
Constitution for other councils to follow suit ? Odds on at the moment is the City of Boroondara.
Constitution for other councils to follow suit ? Odds on at the moment is the City of Boroondara.
My concerns about appeals to the HC are not around Parliament or the Exec Government rejecting the advice of the Voice - it’s clear it will be advisory only. Further, I am happy with the Voice to Parliament, commenting on new/amending legislation and other Parliamentary matters, and I agree completely with others’ remarks above that it should be able to advise Ministers etc on policy ahead of new legislation, so that bills are drafted informed by the Voice (rather than the Voice just advising at bill stage).
However, “Executive Govt” is so broad, encompassing the Ministerial departments, federal agencies reporting to them, federal tribunals, etc etc. Prof Megan Davis made clear on Insiders a couple of weeks ago that the scope of the Voice was intended to cover the public service. The Langdon/Calma report deals well with situations where it would be “obligatory” to consult the Voice; but less so where it would be “expected” to (or not). I think Greg Craven’s concerns (NB he’s a Voice supporter) are spot-on. I definitely see challenges to policies and decisions, on the basis that the Govt should have consulted and didn’t. Administrative law lists are full of this type of case.
The article Baloo links above (The Age article I’d mentioned earlier) reports Prof Anne Twomey as confirming that, “while there was long-standing precedent that courts do not interfere in the workings of the parliament, the same was not true of executive decisions and there was a possibility of litigation”. She then plays down the risk, and states that this should only delay policy/decision-making. I am less optimistic (and delay - with attendant cost - should not be dismissed so lightly). It’s not just Greg Craven’s concern that the Coalition won’t like it; the article states there are legal concerns - which I also have and am aware of from discussions with other lawyers. I also foresee challenges around the scope of “matters affecting…” once Parliament sets that, as the current proposed amendment wording leaves that open (in my view).
I think we should legislate the Voice first; iron out any issues that arise, (hopefully) demonstrate it works, then insert it into the Constitution. People will be reassured, and more likely to vote Yes. At the moment, the referendum may be lost; or if it passes, and problems arise, there’ll be ongoing grandstanding and “I told you so”-ing, causing further angst and controversy. Let’s legislate it, and go to a referendum in a couple of years when all the current uncertainties deterring people have been addressed.
However, “Executive Govt” is so broad, encompassing the Ministerial departments, federal agencies reporting to them, federal tribunals, etc etc. Prof Megan Davis made clear on Insiders a couple of weeks ago that the scope of the Voice was intended to cover the public service. The Langdon/Calma report deals well with situations where it would be “obligatory” to consult the Voice; but less so where it would be “expected” to (or not). I think Greg Craven’s concerns (NB he’s a Voice supporter) are spot-on. I definitely see challenges to policies and decisions, on the basis that the Govt should have consulted and didn’t. Administrative law lists are full of this type of case.
The article Baloo links above (The Age article I’d mentioned earlier) reports Prof Anne Twomey as confirming that, “while there was long-standing precedent that courts do not interfere in the workings of the parliament, the same was not true of executive decisions and there was a possibility of litigation”. She then plays down the risk, and states that this should only delay policy/decision-making. I am less optimistic (and delay - with attendant cost - should not be dismissed so lightly). It’s not just Greg Craven’s concern that the Coalition won’t like it; the article states there are legal concerns - which I also have and am aware of from discussions with other lawyers. I also foresee challenges around the scope of “matters affecting…” once Parliament sets that, as the current proposed amendment wording leaves that open (in my view).
I think we should legislate the Voice first; iron out any issues that arise, (hopefully) demonstrate it works, then insert it into the Constitution. People will be reassured, and more likely to vote Yes. At the moment, the referendum may be lost; or if it passes, and problems arise, there’ll be ongoing grandstanding and “I told you so”-ing, causing further angst and controversy. Let’s legislate it, and go to a referendum in a couple of years when all the current uncertainties deterring people have been addressed.
It's nothing to do with voting yes or no, it's the racist garbage you have posted that exposes you. See below a selection. You appear to have a strong grudge against people of aboriginal descent. Nor any acknowledgement of the actual history of the country. And now you cry like a victim? Don't post racist garbage.
Now when First Fleet duly arrived on 26 Jan 1788 what nation did they invade. They were not Australian as Australians did not exist then as Australia was proclaimed a Nation 26 Jan 1949. The inhabitants then of the Great Southern land were not a Nation. They did not have a Head of State, nor a parliament , a defence force to defend against an Invasion. So who have we invaded ?.
The Voice waste of Tax payers money. Whilst we spin it around our heads our real problems are ignored.. Treaty why as they were not conquered but Settled. Should be thank full that they now live with Freedom of Speech not like Russia, Iran, Japanese ,China & North Korea. Reconciliation dreamtime. If they want reconciliation there fore for eg they open up Ayres Rock for climbing again. Will they ? No. What you have is an educated lot of mixed race pushing there barrow & do any of them recognise there White Heritage. Prime example footballer called an Ape then went ballistic. Can you imagine this ex footballers kids coming home from a school zoo excursion & say to Daddy " the apes were huge. ". Do you think Daddy would need a triple 000 because he had a melt down over it. Doubt it. Real world is that the genuine hard working Oz has to put up with this crap
First message. Are you of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Island descent ? If so we have a designated jumping the line hotline for you > Wot !! Hope not our transport systems do not follow this trend as when you want to board a train bus tram ferry taxi plane stage coach you might hear "Are You of Aboriginal & Torres Strait Island descent if so board & depart first.
Man avoids prison time due to him already punished by Tribal Law. Tribal Law OMG !!. He assaulted a female who after coming out of hospital she took to him with a crowbar. Google it. Now if the Yes gets up & they have a Voice in Wonderland it aint going change the every day life of our Indigenous brothers & sister one iota. Just a talk fest for the Intellects who are that far up em selves they do not know the way out.
Dear Brodders Only need one & here it is.. Now if you attend a Doctors Surgery for the first time or are being admitted to a hospital for a Medical procedure you have to fill out their required personal details or Hospital Admission form . First question Are you of Aboriginal & Torres Strait Island descent ?. Yes or No. I tick No so I have to pay . Now If I ticked Yes do you think I would have to pay. Just remembered another one TransPerth . A few weeks ago my Seniors Travel Card spat the dummy so had to go into Perth to update. Had to fill out a Form. First question ARE YOU OF ABORIGINAL OR TORRES ISLAND STRAIT DESCENT. YES OR NO ? It appears to me you do not understand why they ask here there & everywhere ARE YOU OF ABORIGINAL OR TORRES TRAIT ISLAND DESCENT.
Albo announced a $424 million AUD package for our brudders & sisters.
Baloo the restaurant is already built. Linda Burney dined there. Chefs special was Tripe which she had & she does not recommend it as it gave her the *smile*.
As an aside I can comment directly on the question of aboriginal or Torres straight islander question in public hospitals.
This has nothing to do with paying or not paying, all public hospital services are free for Medicare card holders in Australia. Hospitals get a small premium for indigenous admitted patients and from that premium they have to run programs for indigenous patients and it also pays for the fact that the health outcomes are generally worse and complications of indigenous patients tend to be greater. There are other such payments for other patient groups as well. It is not a lot of money and is really just cost recovery and zero goes to the patient, all patients receive free service.
There are also other questions that are used for statistics and planning purposes, like whether you speak English as a first language etc etc.
it’s a furphy
I don't get the angst, Aboriginal and Torres Straight people *are not recognised* in Australia's constitution, why are the no voters so opposed to them being included in the Constitution. I'm sorry, but it just comes across as racist.
Head and Shin, Greg Craven understands the constitution, he is basically grandstanding and trying to attract attention to himself. To my mind it just makes me think he's more interested in his profile than anything else.
Executive Government is a wide term, it is also a vague term and I doubt there is a specific reference in the constitution. I just can't see anything they could hang a case on.
In any case, the constitution sets the broad rules and then Parliament decides. This is why the referendum must come first. Apart from anything else, if a voice is legislated the argument will come back that we don't need it in the constitution - either way those who seek to undermine the chances of the referendum will find a way to twist it to reduce the chance of success and deliberately avoid having to openly oppose the referendum. All this undermining is strategic.
DS
Executive Government is a wide term, it is also a vague term and I doubt there is a specific reference in the constitution. I just can't see anything they could hang a case on.
In any case, the constitution sets the broad rules and then Parliament decides. This is why the referendum must come first. Apart from anything else, if a voice is legislated the argument will come back that we don't need it in the constitution - either way those who seek to undermine the chances of the referendum will find a way to twist it to reduce the chance of success and deliberately avoid having to openly oppose the referendum. All this undermining is strategic.
DS
DS, I generally enjoy and respect your postings, which are well-informed and articulated.
However, here - I don’t think you can just dismiss Greg Craven (who is pro-Voice) as grandstanding, when he warns that including the Exec Govt could alarm Conservative voters. Add those voters to the Black Sovereigns and the generally wary, and the referendum could be lost.
And your second para touches on a key worry on this point: Executive Govt is a wide, vague term. At the very least, its scope should be clarified so people know what they are voting for or against. This is not one of the details that can wait for legislation afterwards - it is core.
And sorry to keep repeating this point - no one is highlighting that the Voice includes the Exec Govt. All we hear is “Voice to Parliament”, and I imagine most people think that’s all they’re voting on.
They are recognised in Australia's Constituition as you & I are because they are on Australia's Electoral Roll. I do think the Indigenous Australians who allowed Cook then First Fleet made a big big mistake in not repelling the landing. Then this lot would not be the problem for todays Australians but take your pick Spanish, Dutch, German , Portuguese ,Chinese , Japanese , Chinese, Russian or maybe Kim Jong-Un
Last edited:
Ah yes, the 1967 referendum in which our First Nations people were allowed to be included in the Australian census and were deemed to be Australian Citizens. Until then if an Aboriginal woman had a child after being raped by a white man, the child was not considered to be an Australian. We weren't very inclusive were we.
Last edited:
A potentially good date (whatever it was) to celebrate australia day...
Err why the rape lot ?. 1948 Aborigines granted Australian Citizenship. Since them we have been One. Now they want to separate the One. They are on a good wicket now but not satisfied want a better wicket ,more perks etc etc. Overall ,all you here is what white man done not what Aboriginal man done ( he aint done much has he). One way traffic heaped upon us by persons who do not acknowledge their own white heritage.
Not true. This has already been posted. In 1948 all Australians were able to call themselves Australian citizens rather than British subjects except for indigenous Australians who had to wait for the 1967 referendum.
