Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

The Voice

Jump to new
The crap is mostly that, but it really should have nothing to do with the voice.
The question of whether there should be a voice to parliament is separate to a treaty, regardless of how many pages the original statement is.
If its passed, the voice will be setup as per the whims of the government of the day.
Legally, the the Uluru statement, whether it be the one page summary or the 26 page supporting documents, should have no bearing on the voice proposal. The other parts that people seem wary of will need to be enacted by other legislation, which may or may not fail depending on the government of the day.
Conversely, there is absolutely no reason that should the voice referendum fail, the Voice legislation can still be put to parliament, as can a treaty, reparation, a macaratta, truth telling etc etc.
It will depend on the numbers in Parliament.
The real fun starts when all and sundry start the appealing to the high court process.
When it comes to legal argument, legal folk will argue that no means yes and yes means no if it suits.
And then it depends on whether the learned judges agree with the arguments put forward.
If the referendum is passed, its only the beginning.
The legislation to setup the voice will probably run into a couple of hundred pages.
Questions about who is on "the voice", how they get selected, what their term is, what events disallows someone from sitting, how to turf someone out, how the elctroal processes foe member elections are run and by whom, who will be allowed to elect the emebers (i.e. who is a first nation person), how the voice will interact with parliament, remuneration tribunals, who will oversee the whole shebang (a First nations Ombudsman?), the list goes on and on.
If the referendum fails, its not the end of the process.
State governments have shown a propensity to enact various parts of the Uluru statement at a state level (Sa has a Voice, Victoria has a treaty Commission).
And those pushing for the yes vote at federal level will not stop pushing for a treaty, truth telling etc etc.
This whole process has years to map out yet.
So much time, energy, and wealth has been spent on another feel good process that had no hope of unifying the country at all, just divided the country on another issue that affects less than 5% of the population, and to most people, will not achieve the ends that the proponets say it must - namely improve the appalling living conditions that so many of the first nations people find themselves in.
Especially when so much of these appalling living conditions are largely self induced.
Mick
 
wayneL said:
I'm seriously close to crossing off Australia in my list of places to retire in.

Click to expand...

The demand for reparations as part of Makarrata is going to be very interesting. There is no doubt that is one of the key outputs of the Uluru Statement.

I'm hanging around in retirement though, I think I'll be dead before they start getting the 1% of GDP they might be aiming for.
 
Sean K said:
The demand for reparations as part of Makarrata is going to be very interesting. There is no doubt that is one of the key outputs of the Uluru Statement.

I'm hanging around in retirement though, I think I'll be dead before they start getting the 1% of GDP they might be aiming for.
Click to expand...
I'm not so sure, Sean. This is already starting to become a thing in Canada.

And as we know things tend to happen very gradually, then all-at-once.
 
SirRumpole said:
Austria or Switzerland. :cool:
Click to expand...

Yes, spectacular.

Gratuitous travel photo.

Screenshot 2023-08-25 at 4.24.54 pm.png
 
wayneL said:
A bit of levity? Or is the process being rorted? My mrs, who is amazingly accurate with her insights, has being saying it's going to be rigged, despite my initial protestations. Maybe she is going to be right... again.

View attachment 161394
Click to expand...
And on the bews tonight a tick for Yes and a Tick for No. no crosses allowed or wll be deemed to be invalid.
 
Antony Green reckons that the same rule has been in place for 40 years. Can anyone confirm?

I don't understand why a Tick is ok, but a X is not. Other than that, writing Yes of No should be straight forward.

 
JohnDe said:
Antony Green reckons that the same rule has been in place for 40 years. Can anyone confirm?

I don't understand why a Tick is ok, but a X is not. Other than that, writing Yes of No should be straight forward.

Click to expand...

Lets not make it too simple or the NO vote may win.
 
SirRumpole said:
Anything but YES or NO should be invalid.

It's not up to people counting the votes to determine intention.
Click to expand...

Dutton's outrage over this beat-up pretty much sums up the No position.

Don't argue the case before just make up rubbish that doesn't apply like the majority of posts above, cringe worthy.

The tick / cross thing I believe was settled in law in 1988 and since the amount of invalid votes in referendum has been minor (Dutton knows this) and never ever been an issue note the whole process has been passed by parliament (including the use of a single box) there was no issued raised by Dutton.

Carry on.
 
IFocus said:
Dutton's outrage over this beat-up pretty much sums up the No position.

Don't argue the case before just make up rubbish that doesn't apply like the majority of posts above, cringe worthy.

The tick / cross thing I believe was settled in law in 1988 and since the amount of invalid votes in referendum has been minor (Dutton knows this) and never ever been an issue note the whole process has been passed by parliament (including the use of a single box) there was no issued raised by Dutton.

Carry on.
Click to expand...
I don't believe one can draw such a conclusion.

Most No position voters sincerely believe that the referendum will deliver
  • Less positive outcomes for Indigenous welfare and health,
  • Will give a small number (the Indigenous city based leaders) of a small percentage of the population undue influence over policy
  • The present Indigenous leadership have a poor track record in leadership and governance
  • Constitutional mayhem involving the High Court
Now, you may very well disagree with the beliefs of No voters and that is your right. You may want to argue on one point or another. You have your beliefs and those who oppose you have theirs. It is irresponsible however to tar all No voters and their position as being outrageous.

Most Yes and No voters I have spoken to are agreed on one thing, and that is that Albanese and Dutton should have stayed silent and left the decision making to the voters. Politicians tend to have short term needs, primarily getting re-elected, and are unsuited to lead campaigns involving a change to the constitution. Albanese needs to cater to the lunatic left and Dutton to the lunatic Right.

Go watch The Castle instead of reading The Guardian to get an idea of how No voters think, and why they think that way.

gg
 
Garpal Gumnut said:
I don't believe one can draw such a conclusion.

Most No position voters sincerely believe that the referendum will deliver
  • Less positive outcomes for Indigenous welfare and health,
  • Will give a small number (the Indigenous city based leaders) of a small percentage of the population undue influence over policy
  • The present Indigenous leadership have a poor track record in leadership and governance
  • Constitutional mayhem involving the High Court
Now, you may very well disagree with the beliefs of No voters and that is your right. You may want to argue on one point or another. You have your beliefs and those who oppose you have theirs. It is irresponsible however to tar all No voters and their position as being outrageous.

Most Yes and No voters I have spoken to are agreed on one thing, and that is that Albanese and Dutton should have stayed silent and left the decision making to the voters. Politicians tend to have short term needs, primarily getting re-elected, and are unsuited to lead campaigns involving a change to the constitution. Albanese needs to cater to the lunatic left and Dutton to the lunatic Right.

Go watch The Castle instead of reading The Guardian to get an idea of how No voters think, and why they think that way.

gg
Click to expand...
gg well put, Sir.
 
Garpal Gumnut said:
I don't believe one can draw such a conclusion.

Most No position voters sincerely believe that the referendum will deliver
  • Less positive outcomes for Indigenous welfare and health,
  • Will give a small number (the Indigenous city based leaders) of a small percentage of the population undue influence over policy
  • The present Indigenous leadership have a poor track record in leadership and governance
  • Constitutional mayhem involving the High Court
Now, you may very well disagree with the beliefs of No voters and that is your right. You may want to argue on one point or another. You have your beliefs and those who oppose you have theirs. It is irresponsible however to tar all No voters and their position as being outrageous.

Most Yes and No voters I have spoken to are agreed on one thing, and that is that Albanese and Dutton should have stayed silent and left the decision making to the voters. Politicians tend to have short term needs, primarily getting re-elected, and are unsuited to lead campaigns involving a change to the constitution. Albanese needs to cater to the lunatic left and Dutton to the lunatic Right.

Go watch The Castle instead of reading The Guardian to get an idea of how No voters think, and why they think that way.

gg
Click to expand...

Thanks for that advice GG.

I am aware of the No voters beliefs and ability to predict the future better than a gipsy fortune teller particularly on this thread.

You would surely think picking lotto numbers wouldn't be a problem.

A number of my family and friends are voting No such is their distain of Aboriginals, they believe firmly that Aboriginals do not deserve any more than they already get.

But then they are completely honest.

After travelling up the NW and around the top end of Australia everyone I spoke to agreed there is a problem and things are getting worse that's after 10 years of Coalition government now telling us to vote no.

The issue I have with the No vote proponents is that they fail at every turn to address the current issues.

So when the No vote wins as the polls are telling us what then?

Maybe Queensland is leading the way suspend human rights and lockup more kids who will end up on the scrap heap instead of addressing the family disfunction.
 

Similar threads

R
The American use of War Pretext Incidents
Replies
6
Views
9K
sptrawler
sptrawler
Top