Australian Politics Forum - The Aboriginal Voice referendum

Brian Ross Gold Member Offline Representative of me Posts: 40938	Re: The Aboriginal Voice referendum Reply #1290 - Mar 24^th, 2023 at 12:38pm How will WA's vast landscape and wide array of Indigenous viewpoints affect how it votes in Voice referendum?
Back to top	Someone said we could not judge a person's Aboriginality on their skin colour. Why isn't that applied in the matter of Pascoe? Tsk, tsk, tsk... IP Logged

Frank

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 44712
Gender: male

Re: The Aboriginal Voice referendum
Reply #1291 - Mar 24^th, 2023 at 1:07pm

I would very happily vote for a recognition, along the lines proposed by Howard and every PM since him.

A racial Voice in the constitution is a huge leap way too far. It must be defeated.

The referendum on recognition in the Preamble failed in 1999. Electors were also asked to vote on a second question at the 1999 referendum which asked whether they approved of:

A proposed law: To alter the Constitution to insert a preamble.[14]

The preamble would have been:

With hope in God, the Commonwealth of Australia is constituted as a democracy with a federal system of government to serve the common good.
We the Australian people commit ourselves to this Constitution:
proud that our national unity has been forged by Australians from many ancestries;
never forgetting the sacrifices of all who defended our country and our liberty in time of war;
upholding freedom, tolerance, individual dignity and the rule of law;
honouring Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders, the nation's first people, for their deep kinship with their lands and for their ancient and continuing cultures which enrich the life of our country;
recognising the nation-building contribution of generations of immigrants;
mindful of our responsibility to protect our unique natural environment;
supportive of achievement as well as equality of opportunity for all;
and valuing independence as dearly as the national spirit which binds us together in both adversity and success.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_Australian_republic_referendum

Didn't get up.

Back to top

Estragon: I can’t go on like this.
Vladimir: That’s what you think.

IP Logged

Brian Ross

Gold Member

Offline

Representative of me

Posts: 40938

Re: The Aboriginal Voice referendum
Reply #1292 - Mar 24^th, 2023 at 1:23pm

Frank wrote on Mar 24^th, 2023 at 1:07pm:

I would very happily vote for a recognition, along the lines proposed by Howard and every PM since him.

A racial Voice in the constitution is a huge leap way too far. It must be defeated.

The referendum on recognition in the Preamble failed in 1999. Electors were also asked to vote on a second question at the 1999 referendum which asked whether they approved of:

A proposed law: To alter the Constitution to insert a preamble.[14]

The preamble would have been:

With hope in God, the Commonwealth of Australia is constituted as a democracy with a federal system of government to serve the common good.
We the Australian people commit ourselves to this Constitution:
proud that our national unity has been forged by Australians from many ancestries;
never forgetting the sacrifices of all who defended our country and our liberty in time of war;
upholding freedom, tolerance, individual dignity and the rule of law;
honouring Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders, the nation's first people, for their deep kinship with their lands and for their ancient and continuing cultures which enrich the life of our country;
recognising the nation-building contribution of generations of immigrants;
mindful of our responsibility to protect our unique natural environment;
supportive of achievement as well as equality of opportunity for all;
and valuing independence as dearly as the national spirit which binds us together in both adversity and success.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_Australian_republic_referendum

Didn't get up.

Howard never intended it to get up, Soren. He was forced into a referendum by his promises during the election. He worded the question in such a way so it was unpalatable to most Australians deliberately. The Parliament was never going to allow a popularly elected President, so they opted for an appointed one. The population wasn't interested in such a scheme so they voted against it. Tsk, tsk, tsk... Roll Eyes

Back to top

Someone said we could not judge a person's Aboriginality on their skin colour. Why isn't that applied in the matter of Pascoe? Tsk, tsk, tsk... Roll Eyes

IP Logged

Frank

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 44712
Gender: male

Re: The Aboriginal Voice referendum
Reply #1293 - Mar 24^th, 2023 at 2:24pm

The Indigenous voice to parliament does not exist and yet it has already had a massive victory in entrenching its ability to intervene in advance, without limit, in any commonwealth decision.

Indigenous leaders have trumped the government’s legal advice, steamrolled cabinet and entrenched the voice’s power and scope of intervention with the wording and principles for the referendum.

In a remarkable show of power politics – admittedly with a sympathetic and emotionally charged executive – the Indigenous referendum working group refused to accept the government’s preferred wording aimed at trying to restrict impractical or unworkable conditions on day-to-day government.

The victory virtually destroyed any chance of Peter Dutton committing to bipartisan support, because the Liberals wanted the impact on working government restricted, and dramatically increased the chances of the referendum failing. Instead of limiting the impact, the wording and principles go further than the Uluru statement to give the voice power to “proactively” intervene “early” in commonwealth decision-making seeking written advice.

It also ensures that legal challenges can be launched if public servants do not advise the voice to parliament and executive government in advance of developing laws and policies.

What’s more, starting from such a radical position, any further change in the draft words forced through an even more radical Senate in the next six months gives the potential for a riskier proposition.

Anthony Albanese famously said it would be a brave government that ignored the advice of the voice to parliament and the Prime Minister’s own reaction to the referendum outline demonstrates that the voice is so powerful his government can’t resist it even before it comes into being.
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/politics/indigenous-voice-to-parliament-...

Back to top

Estragon: I can’t go on like this.
Vladimir: That’s what you think.

IP Logged

Frank

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 44712
Gender: male

Re: The Aboriginal Voice referendum
Reply #1294 - Mar 24^th, 2023 at 2:28pm

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 24^th, 2023 at 1:23pm:

Frank wrote on Mar 24^th, 2023 at 1:07pm:

I would very happily vote for a recognition, along the lines proposed by Howard and every PM since him.

A racial Voice in the constitution is a huge leap way too far. It must be defeated.

The referendum on recognition in the Preamble failed in 1999. Electors were also asked to vote on a second question at the 1999 referendum which asked whether they approved of:

A proposed law: To alter the Constitution to insert a preamble.[14]

The preamble would have been:

With hope in God, the Commonwealth of Australia is constituted as a democracy with a federal system of government to serve the common good.
We the Australian people commit ourselves to this Constitution:
proud that our national unity has been forged by Australians from many ancestries;
never forgetting the sacrifices of all who defended our country and our liberty in time of war;
upholding freedom, tolerance, individual dignity and the rule of law;
honouring Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders, the nation's first people, for their deep kinship with their lands and for their ancient and continuing cultures which enrich the life of our country;
recognising the nation-building contribution of generations of immigrants;
mindful of our responsibility to protect our unique natural environment;
supportive of achievement as well as equality of opportunity for all;
and valuing independence as dearly as the national spirit which binds us together in both adversity and success.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_Australian_republic_referendum

Didn't get up.

Howard never intended it to get up, Soren. He was forced into a referendum by his promises during the election. He worded the question in such a way so it was unpalatable to most Australians deliberately. The Parliament was never going to allow a popularly elected President, so they opted for an appointed one. The population wasn't interested in such a scheme so they voted against it. Tsk, tsk, tsk... Roll Eyes

There were TWO SEPARATE questions at the 1999 referendum, head of state and preamble with recognition.

They were decided entirely separately. That the Republican model was rejected had nothing to do with the rejection of the preamble.

Back to top

Estragon: I can’t go on like this.
Vladimir: That’s what you think.

IP Logged

Brian Ross

Gold Member

Offline

Representative of me

Posts: 40938

Re: The Aboriginal Voice referendum
Reply #1295 - Mar 24^th, 2023 at 2:46pm

Frank wrote on Mar 24^th, 2023 at 2:28pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 24^th, 2023 at 1:23pm:

Frank wrote on Mar 24^th, 2023 at 1:07pm:

I would very happily vote for a recognition, along the lines proposed by Howard and every PM since him.

A racial Voice in the constitution is a huge leap way too far. It must be defeated.

The referendum on recognition in the Preamble failed in 1999. Electors were also asked to vote on a second question at the 1999 referendum which asked whether they approved of:

A proposed law: To alter the Constitution to insert a preamble.[14]

The preamble would have been:

With hope in God, the Commonwealth of Australia is constituted as a democracy with a federal system of government to serve the common good.
We the Australian people commit ourselves to this Constitution:
proud that our national unity has been forged by Australians from many ancestries;
never forgetting the sacrifices of all who defended our country and our liberty in time of war;
upholding freedom, tolerance, individual dignity and the rule of law;
honouring Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders, the nation's first people, for their deep kinship with their lands and for their ancient and continuing cultures which enrich the life of our country;
recognising the nation-building contribution of generations of immigrants;
mindful of our responsibility to protect our unique natural environment;
supportive of achievement as well as equality of opportunity for all;
and valuing independence as dearly as the national spirit which binds us together in both adversity and success.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_Australian_republic_referendum

Didn't get up.

Howard never intended it to get up, Soren. He was forced into a referendum by his promises during the election. He worded the question in such a way so it was unpalatable to most Australians deliberately. The Parliament was never going to allow a popularly elected President, so they opted for an appointed one. The population wasn't interested in such a scheme so they voted against it. Tsk, tsk, tsk... Roll Eyes

There were TWO SEPARATE questions at the 1999 referendum, head of state and preamble with recognition.

They were decided entirely separately. That the Republican model was rejected had nothing to do with the rejection of the preamble.

What a shame, hey? You sound heart broken, Soren. Perhaps it didn't get up because it was overshadowed by the Head of State question? Who knows? Never took you for an Indigenous Australian supporter, Soren. Afterall, you're a Dane. You flew here, didn't you? Tsk, tsk, tsk... Roll Eyes

Back to top

Someone said we could not judge a person's Aboriginality on their skin colour. Why isn't that applied in the matter of Pascoe? Tsk, tsk, tsk... Roll Eyes

IP Logged

thegreatdivide

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics<br
/>

Posts: 12505
Gender: male

Re: The Aboriginal Voice referendum
Reply #1296 - Mar 24^th, 2023 at 3:35pm

https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/other/voice-to-parliament-constitutional-law-expe...

Voice to Parliament: Constitutional law expert Greg Craven slams Anthony Albanese

Ironic: a conservative "constitutional expert" blaming Albo for being a "Leftist ideologue".

Craven is not an economist - economic orthodoxy re unemployment and the gap being the elephant in the room.

Back to top

IP Logged

Grappler Truth Teller Feller

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 83830
Proud pre-1850's NO Voter
Gender: male

Re: The Aboriginal Voice referendum
Reply #1297 - Mar 24^th, 2023 at 6:32pm

I was always of the belief that on this issue the elephant in the room is and always will be separate treatment under our constitution.

All the side issues need a different approach, given that all pretty much agree any voice will not resolve them or materially assist them in any way.

Stick to the real issue - division of the nation by colour and race.

Back to top

“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”
― John Adams

IP Logged

Gnads

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 29296
Gender: male

Re: The Aboriginal Voice referendum
Reply #1298 - Mar 24^th, 2023 at 6:38pm

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Mar 24^th, 2023 at 6:32pm:

I was always of the belief that on this issue the elephant in the room is and always will be separate treatment under our constitution.

All the side issues need a different approach, given that all pretty much agree any voice will not resolve them or materially assist them in any way.

Stick to the real issue - division of the nation by colour and race.

I think that's beyond TGD he's too busy with sikaflexing the gap, the Job guarantee & MMT.

Back to top

"When you are dead, you do not know you are dead. It's only painful and difficult for others. The same applies when you are stupid." ~ Ricky Gervais

IP Logged

Grappler Truth Teller Feller

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 83830
Proud pre-1850's NO Voter
Gender: male

Re: The Aboriginal Voice referendum
Reply #1299 - Mar 24^th, 2023 at 8:05pm

Gnads wrote on Mar 24^th, 2023 at 6:38pm:

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Mar 24^th, 2023 at 6:32pm:

I was always of the belief that on this issue the elephant in the room is and always will be separate treatment under our constitution.

All the side issues need a different approach, given that all pretty much agree any voice will not resolve them or materially assist them in any way.

Stick to the real issue - division of the nation by colour and race.

I think that's beyond TGD he's too busy with sikaflexing the gap, the Job guarantee & MMT.

All distractions from the real issue - he must be a Labor plant.

Back to top

“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”
― John Adams

IP Logged

Frank Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 44712 Gender:	Re: The Aboriginal Voice referendum Reply #1300 - Mar 24^th, 2023 at 9:51pm Liberal Democrats Australia @LibDemAus We don't oppose the Voice due to clumsy wording or lack of detail, or even just because it won't actually improve outcomes for indigenous people. We oppose it because it's morally wrong to have a race-based house of parliament. #VoteNo for equality before the law.
Back to top	Estragon: I can’t go on like this. Vladimir: That’s what you think. IP Logged

Frank Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 44712 Gender:	Re: The Aboriginal Voice referendum Reply #1301 - Mar 24^th, 2023 at 10:01pm
Back to top	Estragon: I can’t go on like this. Vladimir: That’s what you think. IP Logged

Karnal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 95302
Gender: male

Re: The Aboriginal Voice referendum
Reply #1302 - Mar 25^th, 2023 at 1:28am

Frank wrote on Mar 24^th, 2023 at 9:51pm:

Liberal Democrats Australia
@LibDemAus

We don't oppose the Voice due to clumsy wording or lack of detail, or even just because it won't actually improve outcomes for indigenous people.

We oppose it because it's morally wrong to have a race-based house of parliament.

#VoteNo for equality before the law.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Fr73gY1aMAARsfy?.jpg

Old boy, you'll be voting on North Sea herring quotas before you'll be voting no for a voice, you silly old thing.

Been here 40 years, invented a rollmop.

Back to top

IP Logged

Grappler Truth Teller Feller Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 83830 Proud pre-1850's NO Voter Gender:	Re: The Aboriginal Voice referendum Reply #1303 - Mar 25^th, 2023 at 6:02am Well - Albo's firing loud blanks on all guns trying to make it look good... but the truth is it's sinking.... no use crying over it....
Back to top	“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.” ― John Adams IP Logged

Gnads

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 29296
Gender: male

Re: The Aboriginal Voice referendum
Reply #1304 - Mar 25^th, 2023 at 7:20am

Voice Group expert quits .... Albanese giving activists a green light & power over Govt.

There was always "devilment" in the detail they didn't want to tell you about.

Quote:

VOICE GROUP EXPERT QUITS OVER
‘PERVERSION’
JAMES CAMPBELL

PROFESSOR Greg Craven has quit the federal government’s constitutional
experts group on the Voice, describing the final question to put at this
year’s referendum as “a perversion of the process”.

Anthony Albanese announced on Thursday the question to be asked at the referendum on the Indigenous Voice to parliament later this year.

Professor Craven, a conservative who has been a Voice supporter, quit after the Prime Minister backed the demand of the government’s referendum working group the proposed constitutional change should not
restrict the power of the courts to intervene on behalf of the body.

It is understood Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus had proposed the proposed constitutional amendment should make clear parliament would
have the power to legislate to define the circumstances in which courts
could review government decisions in relation to the Voice.

But Mr Albanese instead backed the working group’s demand there be no such
limitation.

Professor Craven declined to comment on his exit from the group, which was confirmed by government sources.

He described Mr Albanese’s decision as “a huge mistake”, saying it would
empower activist judges.

“I think you should take the working group at its word, and they say it is an intention that the courts have the power to review government over
Voice representations,” he said.

“Originally they were saying there won’t
be any involvement of the judges... this is a complete perversion of the entire process.”

Courier Mail Sat 25 March 2023 paywalled
[url]https://todayspaper.couriermail.com.au/html5/reader/production/default.aspx?pubn
ame=&pubid=3b0f634e-9aa7-4e7f-97c7-54cba6c9efaa
[/url]

Vote NO ... for this constitutional power grab by Aboriginal activists.

Back to top

"When you are dead, you do not know you are dead. It's only painful and difficult for others. The same applies when you are stupid." ~ Ricky Gervais

IP Logged

Poll
Question: Will the referendum be voted in?
* This poll has now closed *
No 42 (75.0%) Yes 14 (25.0%) Total votes: 56 « Last Modified by: Redmond Neck on: Feb 25^th, 2023 at 11:17am »