Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

The Voice

Jump to new
Sean K said:
You can't argue against 'the vibe'.
Click to expand...
That would mean you actually put up an argument to begin with.
The seriously funny part is how you convinced yourself that an article that was wholly supportive of the yes case could be seen as supporting a no case. Then again, some here still think Trump won the 2020 election and was cheated by election fraudsters. The issue of "evidence" to support their case is a vapid as those here touting the no vote.

Not that it matters to you, but not a single point of @DaveTrade's post cut the mustard.
"No" voters continue to read into the Voice matters which are not there, or hold views that do not advance the needs of indigenous Australians.

As Liberal Premier Jeremy Rockliff said yesterday in a message to Peter Dutton and other “No” campaigners, the Voice is about "moving forward together as a nation, with unity and purpose and listening to our national Indigenous Australians on the best way forward”.
Add his predecessors views:
"What I see from the federal Liberal Party at the moment is that they seem determined to keep the country apart."​

Peter Gutwein and Jeremy Mr Rockliff's will campaign for a yes vote alongside Prime Minister Anthony Albanese.
 
DaveTrade said:
All can say Rob is read the article yourself, that's what I got from it.
Click to expand...
I asked you questions in relation to your post because your comments have nothing to do with what the Voice does.
No powers change, and no rights change.
This has nothing to do with "opinions".
DaveTrade said:
I will try to highlight what I mean by the same or different rights by asking if an Australian citizen from an Asian, European, Eastern, Chinese, North or South American or English background or any other background will have a say backed by Constitutional Law.
Click to expand...
Yes, they all can have a say, backed by our Constitution.
Everyone can contact Executive Government regarding a matter or concern or make a "representation".
As noted in the article, the Voice would not disappear with a change in government, as has occurred with previous representative bodies. That's the only change.
 
If, as Warren Mundine alluded to, property owners can't irrigate their properties without the permission of Aboriginal 'owners', then representation has already gone too far.

Considering that some tribe somewhere once roamed all over the country the whole country is subject to the whims of traditional myths and legends.
 
rederob said:
Yes, they all can have a say, backed by our Constitution.
Everyone can contact Executive Government regarding a matter or concern or make a "representation".
Click to expand...
What you are saying here is that ATSI Australians already have the same say as everyone else and that's fine, I just don't think that they should have more say than everyone else.
 
There are several threads I could have put this in but decided on this one, being must topical at the moment:

It is apparently racist to put an Aboriginal woman in charge of the Aboriginal affairs shadow portfolio.

It blows me away at the left don't actually listen to themselves and illegitimatise their own talking points.... Further evidence in interchanges above (eg black women hates black people)

 
SirRumpole said:
If, as Warren Mundine alluded to, property owners can't irrigate their properties without the permission of Aboriginal 'owners', then representation has already gone too far.
Click to expand...
If that is the case somewhere, it has absolutely nothing to do with the Voice, and nothing to do with "representation".
Irrigation per se is controlled by State/Territory legislation with much of it is coordinated through the Murray Darling Basin Plan in the Eastern States.
SirRumpole said:
Considering that some tribe somewhere once roamed all over the country the whole country is subject to the whims of traditional myths and legends.
Click to expand...
You need to separate legislated land rights from "whims".
I have thousands of photos my father took of indigenous rock art throughout the Kimberleys during the 50s and 60s. Despite its sparse and harsh landscape the countryside was full of reminders of whose land it was. Rio Tinto found this out as well but didn't care until they got caught.
 
DaveTrade said:
What you are saying here is that ATSI Australians already have the same say as everyone else and that's fine, I just don't think that they should have more say than everyone else.
Click to expand...
They do not have more say.
If you believe that, then can you tell me where it says so?
 
rederob said:
You need to separate legislated land rights from "whims".
I have thousands of photos my father took of indigenous rock art throughout the Kimberleys during the 50s and 60s. Despite its sparse and harsh landscape the countryside was full of reminders of whose land it was. Rio Tinto found this out as well but didn't care until they got caught.
Click to expand...

I don't mind protecting Aboriginal art and artifacts, in fact I think it's disgusting to deliberately destroy such things, but myths and legends surrounding the land is another thing. eg "secret women's business" .

It seems any excuse could be used to scupper beneficial development.
 
JohnDe said:
Sounds reasonable -

The parliamentary committee should require that the Solicitor-General provide advice on whether the voice could delay decisions of the public service. The committee should insist that the government publish the Solicitor-General’s advice. His advice should address questions such as:
  • Would the proposed amendment provide the voice with a constitutional entitlement to receive notice that a public servant was considering making an administrative decision relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples?
  • Would the voice then have a constitutional entitlement to receive sufficient information from the public servant about the proposed decision so as to make an informed representation?
  • What would constitute due consideration of any representation received?
  • Would the public service have a constitutional duty to inform the voice that they were about to consider some policy options for submission to their minister when those options could relate to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples? And how early in the development of policy options would the constitutional duty to inform come into play?
  • To what extent, if any, could any constitutional duty on the public service be modified or negated by parliament enacting a law under the proposed amendment which is specified to be “subject to this Constitution”?
  • Which Commonwealth agencies would be required to receive representations from the voice?
  • What limits might parliament set on representations from the voice to “independent statutory offices and agencies – such as the Reserve Bank, as well as a wide array of other agencies including, to name a few, Centrelink, the Great Barrier Marine Park Authority and the Ombudsman” (the Davis/Appleby list)?
Click to expand...

Will the Solicitor-General be answering these questions? If constitutional change allows a group to hold up processes of governemnt and public service, is that not a form of power?

The parliamentary committee should require that the Solicitor-General provide advice on whether the voice could delay decisions of the public service. The committee should insist that the government publish the Solicitor-General’s advice. His advice should address questions such as:
  • Would the proposed amendment provide the voice with a constitutional entitlement to receive notice that a public servant was considering making an administrative decision relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples?
  • Would the voice then have a constitutional entitlement to receive sufficient information from the public servant about the proposed decision so as to make an informed representation?
  • What would constitute due consideration of any representation received?
  • Would the public service have a constitutional duty to inform the voice that they were about to consider some policy options for submission to their minister when those options could relate to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples? And how early in the development of policy options would the constitutional duty to inform come into play?
  • To what extent, if any, could any constitutional duty on the public service be modified or negated by parliament enacting a law under the proposed amendment which is specified to be “subject to this Constitution”?
  • Which Commonwealth agencies would be required to receive representations from the voice?
  • What limits might parliament set on representations from the voice to “independent statutory offices and agencies – such as the Reserve Bank, as well as a wide array of other agencies including, to name a few, Centrelink, the Great Barrier Marine Park Authority and the Ombudsman” (the Davis/Appleby list)?
 
wayneL said:
There are several threads I could have put this in but decided on this one, being must topical at the moment:

It is apparently racist to put an Aboriginal woman in charge of the Aboriginal affairs shadow portfolio.

It blows me away at the left don't actually listen to themselves and illegitimatise their own talking points.... Further evidence in interchanges above (eg black women hates black people)

Click to expand...


Price is pretty canny she will need to be as the Nats and Dutton throw her under a very big bus.

Note the conflict that Price supports a Voice at local area and child protection run from Canberra.
 
IFocus said:
Price is pretty canny she will need to be as the Nats and Dutton throw her under a very big bus.

Note the conflict that Price supports a Voice at local area and child protection run from Canberra.
Click to expand...
Price supports what she thinks will be effective for indigenous people at the level where it might be effective, rather than enriching the elites.

Which is very obviously racist
 
wayneL said:
Price supports what she thinks will be effective for indigenous people at the level where it might be effective, rather than enriching the elites.

Which is very obviously racist
Click to expand...

Not really sure what Price thinks as her positions are political as a result conflicted and often ideological.

In party politics you cannot support what you think.

The Liberals position is so Dutton can survive.

Nothing to do with race other than for the likes of hard right whites to hide behind which is very sad IMHO.

Suspect Price will be cannon fodder.
 
Wayne looking forward to another laughter emoji cheers.


https://capturedstates.substack.com/p/the-man-who-wont-listen “ After a string of softballs from the media pack, an admirable journalist, Lee Robinson, told Dutton that the local traditional owners and Central Land Council support the Voice and the Uluru Statement from the Heart. Why, the journalist asked, had Dutton not met with the groups during his multiple trips to Alice Springs?

Dutton's answer was revealing. “I'll let those groups speak for themselves,” he said, and went on to describe what untraceable shopping centre patrons had supposedly told him. He didn't explain why he hadn't met with local Aboriginal leaders. He was focused on people who shared his views. “ This was where Dutton's Voice position broke down completely. Local Aboriginal leaders — democratically elected by their communities — were disappointed that Dutton had not met with them and heard why the Voice and the Uluru Statement from the Heart are so important to their communities. Further, Dutton didn't commit to meeting with them while he was in Alice Springs this time. …… It's worth explaining who Dutton was snubbing. The Central Land Council is 90 democratically-elected Aboriginal people from central Australia. They cover 770,000km² and speak 15 languages. Their territory includes Alice Springs. They have been elected by their communities ‘to represent them and fight for their rights'.……. All four Land Councils in the Northern Territory endorse the Uluru Statement and want the Voice. So do democratically elected Land Councils all over Australia. Grassroots Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander organisations do too. Polls show 80 per cent of Indigenous people support the Voice proposal. This is who Dutton opposes………… What good are regional Voices if the leader of the Coalition is already refusing to meet with them? ………. Maybe spud just wants to hear from regional voices that he personally selects .
 
IFocus said:
Simple question, how?
Click to expand...

I presume that if the questions were simple that we the public would have seen the answers by now from the Solicitor-General.

There is a while to go before we have to vote, I'm still in the 50/50 camp, not sure if my vote is a yes or no. However, a couple of consistent posters have made me very wary. One appears to be a racist to those not sharing his opinion, and the other likes t people with a differing opinion to his own a liar. These two people make me wonder about others on the yes campaign.

The parliamentary committee should require that the Solicitor-General provide advice on whether the voice could delay decisions of the public service. The committee should insist that the government publish the Solicitor-General’s advice. His advice should address questions such as:
  • Would the proposed amendment provide the voice with a constitutional entitlement to receive notice that a public servant was considering making an administrative decision relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples?
  • Would the voice then have a constitutional entitlement to receive sufficient information from the public servant about the proposed decision so as to make an informed representation?
  • What would constitute due consideration of any representation received?
  • Would the public service have a constitutional duty to inform the voice that they were about to consider some policy options for submission to their minister when those options could relate to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples? And how early in the development of policy options would the constitutional duty to inform come into play?
  • To what extent, if any, could any constitutional duty on the public service be modified or negated by parliament enacting a law under the proposed amendment which is specified to be “subject to this Constitution”?
  • Which Commonwealth agencies would be required to receive representations from the voice?
  • What limits might parliament set on representations from the voice to “independent statutory offices and agencies – such as the Reserve Bank, as well as a wide array of other agencies including, to name a few, Centrelink, the Great Barrier Marine Park Authority and the Ombudsman” (the Davis/Appleby list)?
 

Similar threads

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