The Voice

[JohnDe]

Hmm I thought that's what the elected Representatives were supposed to be doing.

Yes, something that has been developed over thousands of years from the blood, sweat and tears of generations of people across the globe. Now we must decide whether to vote Yes or No to a change that means different things to different people. I've been reading everything I can get on the Voice, my mind is open, my decision will be made at the last minute when I can't get any more information.

What is an elected representative in Australia?​

Members of the House of Representatives are elected to represent the people of one of Australia's 151 electorates . Members come from a wide range of backgrounds and reflect the diversity of Australia's population. Members do their job within the Parliament and their electorates.​

 

[basilio]

The past cannot be changed and must not be repeated. Only the future can be changed, Laws must be equal for all.

It is sad what colonisation has done to the original inhabitants of lands across the globe and on our continent. Emotions run wild.

I was born in this land, my children born on this land. I want equal representation in the laws and constitution of this country for all.

My voting decision has not been decided yet, but the more I think about it the more I don't like the idea of creating clauses in our constitution for different citizens. I think that I'll make up my mind on the day of the vote.

Are you aware that the Constitution originally had clauses in it specifically directed to original inhabitants ?
As initially written, s 51(xxvi) empowered the Parliament to make laws with respect to: "The people of any race, other than the aboriginal race in any State, for whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws". The Australian people voting at the 1967 referendum deleted the words in italics.

Section 51(xxvi) of the Constitution of Australia - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[JohnDe]

Are you aware that the Constitution originally had clauses in it specifically directed to original inhabitants ?
As initially written, s 51(xxvi) empowered the Parliament to make laws with respect to: "The people of any race, other than the aboriginal race in any State, for whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws". The Australian people voting at the 1967 referendum deleted the words in italics.

Section 51(xxvi) of the Constitution of Australia - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Yes.

What are you trying to say to me?

A constitutional voice changes the nature of citizenship for all Australians because it creates a different category of citizenship according to race. That repudiates liberalism, which always tries to eradicate race from civic status. We were ashamed of the historical treatment of Aboriginal Australians because they were singled out by race. We put an end to race-based immigration. Every advance of liberalism rejects race as an element of civic status. The voice would institutionalise a new and destructive emphasis on race.​

​

The Australian Constitution contains only two references to race. Section 51 gives the commonwealth the power to make laws regarding any race. Section 25 prevents states counting people in the census, and thus for the allocation of seats in parliament, if they have disqualified them from voting because of their race.​

​

I’d be happy if both sections were gone. Section 51 ought just to say the commonwealth can make laws for any Australians, or group of Australians. Section 25 is a complete dead letter. Racial discrimination is illegal in Australia and no one is disqualified from voting.​

​

But constitutions often contain anachronistic oddities that are too much trouble to get rid of. The Indian constitution provides it will always be a socialist state. Imagine what our High Court would do with that! Neither section 51 nor section 25 as it exists today does any harm. There are very few laws under section 51 anyway, yet notionally the idea of responding to such laws is the whole rationale for the mistaken idea of the voice. Yet the government’s voice proposal now extends vastly beyond such laws.​

​

The whole idea of constitutional recognition ignores the nature of the Australian Constitution. Statements of sentiment are completely misplaced in our Constitution. Federal members of parliament are given booklets to distribute to schoolchildren to explain the Constitution. The booklet says: “Australia’s Constitution contains little of the soaring rhetoric which is familiar in the constitutions of many other lands. That is one of its strengths. It is a practical, matter-of-fact, unpretentious but effective document. As such, it reflects the pragmatic, no-nonsense attitude which we like to think is among the most attractive features of the Australian character.”​

​

#612 ​

 

[rederob]

Yes.

What are you trying to say to me?

A constitutional voice changes the nature of citizenship for all Australians because it creates a different category of citizenship according to race. ​

Totally untrue.

The voice would institutionalise a new and destructive emphasis on race.​

Outright lie

There are very few laws under section 51 anyway, yet notionally the idea of responding to such laws is the whole rationale for the mistaken idea of the voice.​

No it's not. This is another blatant lie

Yet the government’s voice proposal now extends vastly beyond such laws.​

No laws are affected, so its another bald faced lie.

The whole idea of constitutional recognition ignores the nature of the Australian Constitution. Statements of sentiment are completely misplaced in our Constitution. ​

Meaningless word salad. You can only achieve recognition in a Constitution by writing it into the Constitution!
Also, there has been bipartisan support going back decades:

Election pledge for new referendum​

October 16, 2007​

Prime minister John Howard makes a re-election pledge to hold a referendum on constitutional recognition for Indigenous Australians. ​

@JohnDe - why are you repeating so many lies from the Australian?
If this is what you personally believe then your understanding of our system of government is fundamentally flawed.

 

[JohnDe]

Totally untrue.

Outright lie

No it's not. This is another blatant lie

No laws are affected, so its another bald faced lie.

Meaningless word salad. You can only achieve recognition in a Constitution by writing it into the Constitution!
Also, there has been bipartisan support going back decades:

​

You do know that you can contact the author and personally tell him that you believe that he tells lies? And if you are correct, you can put the record straight and post it here for us all to read. If you can't do that, then who is to say that you are not the one telling a lie?

Greg Sheridan​

FOREIGN EDITOR

MELBOURNE
Greg Sheridan is The Australian's foreign editor. His most recent book, Christians, the urgent case for Jesus in our world, became a best seller weeks after publication. It makes the case for the historical reliability of the New Testament and explores the lives of early Christians and contemporary Christians. He is one of the nation's most influential national security commentators, who is active across television and radio, and also writes extensively on culture and religion. He has written eight books, mostly on Asia and international relations. A previous book, God is Good for You, was also a best seller. When We Were Young and Foolish was an entertaining memoir of culture, politics and journalism. As foreign editor, he specialises in Asia and America. He has interviewed Presidents and Prime Ministers around the world.

 

[SirRumpole]

Prime minister John Howard makes a re-election pledge to hold a referendum on constitutional recognition for Indigenous Australians.

Constitutional recognition is a long way away from establishing another bureaucracy for one group of people.

Very few people would disagree that Aboriginal people were here before the white man, it's historical fact. If that fact goes in the Constitution it wouldn't bother the majority.

But people are being asked to entrench permanently a body representing a small group of people which we the taxpayers pay for and whose powers are unknown.

That's a different matter.

 

[wayneL]

Constitutional recognition is a long way away from establishing another bureaucracy for one group of people.

Very few people would disagree that Aboriginal people were here before the white man, it's historical fact. If that fact goes in the Constitution it wouldn't bother the majority.

But people are being asked to entrench permanently a body representing a small group of people which we the taxpayers pay for and whose powers are unknown.

That's a different matter.

Exactly why recognition in the Constitution is an exercise in futility, it doesn't do anything in law... Unless you want to create a two tier citizenship.

We already had that to the detriment of the indigenous and the vast majority agreed that it was not a good thing. Now we're being us to enshrine the same thing in the constitution, just with different imperatives.

To repeat ad nauseam, it is divisive, will only enrich the elite with no benefit to the ordinary folks.

It is still a hard no for me, eben if I am in favour of a hand up for grass roots indigenous in some productive fashion

 

[orr]

You do know that you can contact the author and personally tell him that you believe that he tells lies? And if you are correct, you can put the record straight and post it here for us all to read. If you can't do that, then who is to say that you are not the one telling a lie?

Greg Sheridan​

View attachment 155699
FOREIGN EDITOR

MELBOURNE
Greg Sheridan is The Australian's foreign editor. His most recent book, Christians, the urgent case for Jesus in our world, became a best seller weeks after publication. It makes the case for the historical reliability of the New Testament and explores the lives of early Christians and contemporary Christians. He is one of the nation's most influential national security commentators, who is active across television and radio, and also writes extensively on culture and religion. He has written eight books, mostly on Asia and international relations. A previous book, God is Good for You, was also a best seller. When We Were Young and Foolish was an entertaining memoir of culture, politics and journalism. As foreign editor, he specialises in Asia and America. He has interviewed Presidents and Prime Ministers around the world.

The historical reliability of the New Testament;
Matthew 27:52 'the tombs broke open and the saints inside where resurrected'

To quote Roky Erickson from 'Creature with the atom brian'... 'well you can believe that if you want to'

People may wish to search John Dee 1527-1608.....
Show'n ya colours JohnDe-o'

 

[JohnDe]

The historical reliability of the New Testament;
Matthew 27:52 'the tombs broke open and the saints inside where resurrected'

To quote Roky Erickson from 'Creature with the atom brian'... 'well you can believe that if you want to'

People may wish to search John Dee 1527-1608.....
Show'n ya colours JohnDe-o'

You definitely have.

I read & listen to many views & sources. Some minor parts of the bible I remember from my catholic primary but mostly from the old movies. The bible quote you mention means nothing to me.

If you believe that I follow Greg’s writings because he is religious, you are very wrong. And maybe that’s where your true colours come in ?

 

[rederob]

But people are being asked to entrench permanently a body representing a small group of people which we the taxpayers pay for and whose powers are unknown.

The body has an advisory role, as has been made clear time and again.
What makes you think they have "powers" beyond their representative role which relates to advising on ATSI matters?

I have not seen anywhere the concerns you keep raising.

 

[SirRumpole]

The body has an advisory role, as has been made clear time and again.
What makes you think they have "powers" beyond their representative role which relates to advising on ATSI matters?

I have not seen anywhere the concerns you keep raising.

Read the referendum question again.

 

[rederob]

You do know that you can contact the author and personally tell him that you believe that he tells lies? And if you are correct, you can put the record straight and post it here for us all to read. If you can't do that, then who is to say that you are not the one telling a lie?

A lie is a lie.
If you are falling for them, more fool you.
You have some delusional idea that a person's name gives them credibility.

Lies can be tested.
So let's look at the first one about citizenship.
Sheridan cannot show, and does not for that reason, how the Voice affects citizenship.
Nobody's citizenship is mentioned in the Voice, as it has nothing to do with that matter.

Let's look at the second one about race.
Not even Dutton plays the race card because as mean spirited as he is, he's not actually always stupid.
Find an authority who claims the Voice is race based, and then get them to explain how recognition stretches to "destruction".
Apart from the Australian Law Council having no concerns, today the NSW Law Council came out with the same opinion.
All previous Australian Human Rights Commissioners agree that recognition cannot be conflated into a racial debate.

I'll stop on this 3rd point about "laws".
Contrary to Sheridan's idea, the Uluru Statement from the Heart had absolutely nothing to do with changing any laws, and he was lying. The Voice is about policies affecting ATSI peoples.

 

[rederob]

Read the referendum question again.

Give it a rest.
If you cannot enunciate your point it has no value.

 

[SirRumpole]

Give it a rest.
If you cannot enunciate your point it has no value.

"The Parliament shall have powers to make laws in respect to the Voice, including its composition powers and procedures."

Linda Burney might decide to give TV the power to demand that Ministers or officials appear before it and answer questions. That's more than merely "making representations".

 

[JohnDe]

A lie is a lie.
If you are falling for them, more fool you.

Goes both ways, I can say the same for you. Though your foolishness follow with aggression and anger.

 

[farmerge]

Goes both ways, I can say the same for you. Though your foolishness follow with aggression and anger.

Well I've already made up my mind and will be voting against it . There are enough elected souls to push their barrow.
As far as I am concerned fineto.

 

[IFocus]

"The Parliament shall have powers to make laws in respect to the Voice, including its composition powers and procedures."

Linda Burney might decide to give TV the power to demand that Ministers or officials appear before it and answer questions. That's more than merely "making representations".

This applies to any government making any changes it can get through parliament for any reason, to be honest Rump that's heading down a very deep conspiracy rabbit hole like some of the US threads on here that I don't even bother reading any more.

The intensions of the Voice are very clear as is the wording, the recurring issue with the articles published (Sheridan / Mundine) is they keep saying what will happen then weirdly follow up with saying the legislation hasn't been passed yet to determine what will happen.

Dutton has said yes while saying no, its getting beyond the absurd with these guys twisting themselves inside out.

 

[IFocus]

Well I've already made up my mind and will be voting against it . There are enough elected souls to push their barrow.
As far as I am concerned fineto.

And there is the problem, an example of the nationals member voting no while the communities he represents in the NT want it.

If you are talking about Jacinta clearly she hates blackfellas and makes it very clear, go fugue, no representation there.

 

[SirRumpole]

This applies to any government making any changes it can get through parliament for any reason, to be honest Rump that's heading down a very deep conspiracy rabbit hole like some of the US threads on here that I don't even bother reading any more.

The intensions of the Voice are very clear as is the wording, the recurring issue with the articles published (Sheridan / Mundine) is they keep saying what will happen then weirdly follow up with saying the legislation hasn't been passed yet to determine what will happen.

Dutton has said yes while saying no, its getting beyond the absurd with these guys twisting themselves inside out.

Strange things happen when people get a bit of power, look at ATSIC.

The good thing about that was that when it got corrupt it was abolished, can't do that if it's Constitutionally enshrined.

 

[rederob]

"The Parliament shall have powers to make laws in respect to the Voice, including its composition powers and procedures."

In this context it relates to operational powers. In other words, what can it do of itself to provide advice.
Business owners, for example, has certain powers. They can hire and fire. They have a budget they use to buy what they need to operate, etc., etc..

Linda Burney might decide to give TV the power to demand that Ministers or officials appear before it and answer questions. That's more than merely "making representations".

You really are clueless!