- Joined
- 28 May 2020
- Posts
- 6,606
- Reactions
- 12,668
Hows about you let us know which of the 8 billion Abbreviations your version of FMD might stand for?
I can't imagine its Field Monitoring Device.
Mick
Hows about you let us know which of the 8 billion Abbreviations your version of FMD might stand for?Geezus, some of the comments here in 2023 are unbelievable.
Question: is there any thing more Australian than an Aboriginal... think about it.
As for the high court FMD really?
Geezus, some of the comments here in 2023 are unbelievable.
Question: is there any thing more Australian than an Aboriginal... think about it.
Not nice at all.The love, peace and harmony from he Voice proponents knows no bounds.
Latham might be a contradictory dork, but this sort of hate speech does nothing for Langton's cause.
All she has done is go one or two rungs lower than Latham.
Its kinda ironic that giving she says she is looking for a life without hate, that she indulges in just that.
View attachment 155011
Hows about you let us know which of the 8 billion Abbreviations your version of FMD might stand for?
I can't imagine its Field Monitoring Device.
Mick
Apologies Mick got exasperated shouldn't have used the term, FMD translates to having sex with my brown dog.
Re the extreme high court comments and extreme further requirements to security agency's etc, the referendum is for the existence of a Voice the operation is through passing legislation hence I use "extreme"'
How about some ones opinion who is a conservative and previous high court judge and quote "one of Australia’s most respected thinkers on constitutional law."
"On July 18, the former chief justice of the High Court of Australia, Murray Gleeson, delivered a powerful endorsement of the proposal for constitutional recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples through a First Nations Voice, describing it as a “worthwhile project”.
Two weeks later, another former chief justice, Robert French, wrote an essay in The Australian explaining that the constitutional entrenchment of a First Nations Voice would be part of Australians’ journey to know “who we are as a nation”.
2nd previous high court judge chimes in.
"However, it represented an important and new contribution to the current debate. It revealed, for the first time, one of Australia’s most highly respected, legally conservative mind’s understanding of why the Voice was consistent with our constitutional system, and why it should be pursued as “a worthwhile project”, as he put it.
French is also one of Australia’s most respected constitutional lawyers. Before his appointment to the High Court he was the president of the Australian Association of Constitutional Law. French was, and is, well respected across political lines. Indeed, as a young man he had run for office in Western Australia as a Liberal candidate against Kim Beazley senior.
French’s intervention in the current debate also drew on his extensive experience working with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. As founding member of the West Australian Aboriginal Legal Service, he was involved in many native title cases as a Federal Court judge from 1986-2008. He was president of the Native Title Tribunal from 1994-1998."
‘A worthwhile project’: why two chief justices support the Voice to parliament, and why that matters
Two former high court justices and constitutional experts have thrown their support behind the importance of a First Nations Voice to parliament.theconversation.com
So if eminent legal people put out a statement endorsing your views that's ok, but other eminent legal people who put dissenting legal opinions is racist and extreme.Apologies Mick got exasperated shouldn't have used the term, FMD translates to having sex with my brown dog.
Re the extreme high court comments and extreme further requirements to security agency's etc, the referendum is for the existence of a Voice the operation is through passing legislation hence I use "extreme"'
How about some ones opinion who is a conservative and previous high court judge and quote "one of Australia’s most respected thinkers on constitutional law."
"On July 18, the former chief justice of the High Court of Australia, Murray Gleeson, delivered a powerful endorsement of the proposal for constitutional recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples through a First Nations Voice, describing it as a “worthwhile project”.
Two weeks later, another former chief justice, Robert French, wrote an essay in The Australian explaining that the constitutional entrenchment of a First Nations Voice would be part of Australians’ journey to know “who we are as a nation”.
2nd previous high court judge chimes in.
"However, it represented an important and new contribution to the current debate. It revealed, for the first time, one of Australia’s most highly respected, legally conservative mind’s understanding of why the Voice was consistent with our constitutional system, and why it should be pursued as “a worthwhile project”, as he put it.
French is also one of Australia’s most respected constitutional lawyers. Before his appointment to the High Court he was the president of the Australian Association of Constitutional Law. French was, and is, well respected across political lines. Indeed, as a young man he had run for office in Western Australia as a Liberal candidate against Kim Beazley senior.
French’s intervention in the current debate also drew on his extensive experience working with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. As founding member of the West Australian Aboriginal Legal Service, he was involved in many native title cases as a Federal Court judge from 1986-2008. He was president of the Native Title Tribunal from 1994-1998."
‘A worthwhile project’: why two chief justices support the Voice to parliament, and why that matters
Two former high court justices and constitutional experts have thrown their support behind the importance of a First Nations Voice to parliament.theconversation.com
Yes, a few constitutional lawyers are having their say, and one of them is Greg Craven, who has been a part of the process from the start. He supports a voice and having it in the constitution but admits it's been hijacked by a few Aboriginal elites who have ensured there's a route to litigation in the High Court if The Voice is not listened to and the government does not do as it says. Even the AG admits that. It's a trojan horse for lawfare against the elected parliament and our democracy.
View attachment 155019
Does this imply that "the Voice" basically has a veto for any law made by our elected Federal Govt ?
If they don't like it can they take it to the Court and delay any law?
Maybe we could do away with all politicians and just have "the Voice" make decisions, be a lot cheaper.
Ideological wokeness seems to trump following things to their logical conclusions
My understanding is that The Voice must be consulted early and be able to make representations against any legislation that affects them. The government doesn't have to accept those representations and could push through anything it wants under the current system. But, if the legislation was significant enough in that it affected Aboriginals directly in some way, and they did not approve, or did not think they were adequately consulted, then yes, they could go to the High Court to claim they have not been sufficiently considered under the constitution Chapter 9.
The other part to the new wording is that The Voice can make representations to the executive government including public servants that they think xyz should happen. The government then must consider that and provide a response. If that is not adequate for The Voice, they could claim because of xyz the government has not listened to them according to Chapter 9 and take it to the High Court for a ruling.
Where is what?Where is any of that in the constitution proposal?
No I am not. I am describing how the activists will use the High court to get what they want either by paralysis or by judicial overeach.Are you not describing how the voice will work or operate?
No, if its described in the constitution, it may well be decided by the high court.How it will operate is decided by the parliament subject to changes from the government of the day.
No, I said nothing of the kind.Are you saying that any high court action won't result in changes by government?
Where is any of that in the constitution proposal?
Are you not describing how the voice will work or operate?
How it will operate is decided by the parliament subject to changes from the government of the day.
Are you saying that any high court action won't result in changes by government?
There are a multitude of groups that get consulted before decisions are made, unions, business groups, the AMA, the Pharmacy Guild , ACOSS etc and that's fine, but none of them have a Constitutional right to be consulted, and that's right too because in the end it's the Parliament that makes the laws.
Why should Public Servants have to consult a representative body ? Public servants don't make laws they carry them out. All consultation should have been done with Parliamentarians before the laws are made.
And who decides whether laws "affect" ATSI people ? That could be almost anything. So are we going to get hung up on whether a proposed law affects ATSI people and that they therefore have to be consulted ? eg the cashless welfare card. Yes it affect ATSI people , but it also affects a lot of others. Why should the Voice be consulted and no one else ?
And why not release the Solicitor General's advice ? This isn't a security issue. I'd like to know what he said if I have to vote to change the Constitution.
Craven is one of the few eminent academics that's taken this stand there is a wall of others at his level and higher disagree.Under the current wording, that's how Greg Craven, amongst others,
CorrectThe Voice will be able to make representation against any legislation that they think affects them.
The parliament will have to negotiate on any changes The Voice wants.
What happens if The Voice doesn't get what it wants?
The powers of the Voice are determined by Parliament.My understanding is that The Voice must be consulted early and be able to make representations against any legislation that affects them.
Incorrect. Chapter 9 makes no such provision.The government doesn't have to accept those representations and could push through anything it wants under the current system. But, if the legislation was significant enough in that it affected Aboriginals directly in some way, and they did not approve, or did not think they were adequately consulted, then yes, they could go to the High Court to claim they have not been sufficiently considered under the constitution Chapter 9.
Again incorrect as there is no such provision.The other part to the new wording is that The Voice can make representations to the executive government including public servants that they think xyz should happen. The government then must consider that and provide a response. If that is not adequate for The Voice, they could claim because of xyz the government has not listened to them according to Chapter 9 and take it to the High Court for a ruling.
Really?This Voice is going to be a $100m + branch of the Parliamentary system analysing every piece of paper flowing through both houses to see how it can be tweaked to favour ATSI..
Complete fantasy. Matters affecting investments etc are covered by very separate legislation.It's likely that even the FIRB will have to consult with The Voice to get approval for foreign investment in the country.
Cloud cuckoo stuff.This is potentially the single biggest change to our constitution since Federation.
Should we provide a mechanism that enables matters affecting them to have their input?
No it is not the case the voice has no power.
The government of the day will have to publicly justify its case if it chooses to nothing more.
They are not first nations and have not been systemically disadvantaged for over 2 centuries.The same mechanism that allow unions, business groups, disability advocates et al to have their say.
The unique cultures of the various indigenous groups are seldom considered in broad brush policies.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?