Albo's question

[Bruce Tuncks]

I like Albo. I reckon he is going through the motions of this voice thing because he is fulfilling a promise and he is doing that to the best of his ability. I feel sorry for Dutton. He is by no means stupid, but he looks too much like Voldemort to get elected.

I would change my vote on the voice if the pro side could come up with a good statement on the lawlessness at Alice Springs...  for example, that the law should be applied equally regardless of race.

Alas, I reckon they will do the opposite and Alice Springs will fade away.

[kgwilson]

The point of the voice is simple to me. Every government since federation has failed first nations people. None of the closing the gaps and other government initiatives have worked because the white majority governments make the decisions and don't involve those who they purport to help even if they say they do. The voice just provides an avenue to government for their opinion on issues that affect them. The voice will be from their tribes/mobs etc and not from a few whitewashed black faces.

 

We made them what they are as we are their conquerers. We gave them alcohol, tried to make their 60 thousand year old cuture change to suit our ideals, took away their children, the list is endless. 

 

The Voice may not be perfect but nothing has worked in the past and it is a good first step. If the Voice does not get up it will prove that Racism and discrimination is still in the majority and nothing will change for the better.

[kgwilson]

BTW Robert Gottliebsen is a wealthy right wing business and investment commentator who works for the Murdoch press. His comments and attitude are entirely predictable.

[facthunter]

You're not posting your opinion either  red, just reposting propaganda.  Nev

[red750]

If only we could be sure you are right. But the secrecy about it is what is concerning. Just like Dan Andrews trip to China. 

[facthunter]

Would you rather we hype up imminent  war?   I understand he takes business people with him and HE will Be elected by the People to get back in. Do you have problems with that? Frydenberg chucked hand grenades at Victoria and lost the safest Liberal seat in Australia. The PEOPLE decided.  Nev

[red750]

I'm not saying that the intentions and sentiments of the proposal aren't laudable or justifiable, but the method is fraught with danger. Locking it into the constituation closes a lot of doors.

 

I'm sure the American founding fathers thought their Second Amendment was right and appropriate for the circumastances at the time, and look how it has now turned and bitten them in the butt. Legislating the required changes allows them to be corrected if they turn out to have serious consequences. Writing them into the Constitution requires another referendum to change them.

[facthunter]

This  change doesn't require a referendum either but Having Bipartisan agreement is more desirable and less contentious. Funnily what the LNP etc are opposing now was their proposal a while ago. Why do you think Ken Wyatt LEFT the Liberal party? Leeser who is the appropriate shadow minister was even given the opportunity to present the motion to the shadow cabinet and didn't speak on it. There's a LOT of disharmony in the Libs now and they are completely overwhelmed by Littleproud's mob who aren't exactly al love and harmony either. Nev

[red750]

Section 128 of the Constitution states:

 

This Constitution shall not be altered except in the following manner:

The proposed law for the alteration thereof must be passed by an absolute majority of each House of the Parliament, and not less than two nor more than six months after its passage through both Houses the proposed law shall be submitted in each State and Territory to the electors qualified to vote for the election of members of the House of Representatives.

 

(My underlining.)

[Old Koreelah]

Red I’m so disappointed to read that article you posted, especially in the lead up to this most important referendum. 
A scare campaign by the wealthy, who know how easy it has been to kill off almost every effort to fine-tune our Constitution.

We heard the same rot thirty years ago during the Mabo case: “you’ll lose your house if blacks get landrights!” 
What lot of twaddle!

[old man emu]

7 hours ago, rgmwa said:

outcome will be determined by those currently undecided and disengaged voters

It seems the me that this debate has centred itself on the history of the interaction of the descendants of the British colonists of the 19th Century (including the unwilling colonists) and Aboriginal people. However, if we use the end of the Vietnam War as a timestamp, Australians who don't possess this historical background have been making up a growing proportion of the population. Therefore, I wonder how those whose ancestry is not British, nor even European, are viewing this debate. Do they give a care at all? 

[Marty_d]

9 hours ago, red750 said:

Makes one wonder Who is telling us what !!!!

 

This is the most critical issue in Australia's future because it is the first spark that will cause a long burning bushfire throughout our economy and your assets.

 

IF YOU OWN PROPERTY VOTE NO FOR THE TREACHEROUS VOICE REFERENDUM OR YOU WILL LOSE YOUR TITLE AND SECURITY OF OWNERSHIP IN THE FUTURE

  Spread this around

 

Why the Voice could hurt parliament, capital system: Robert Gottliebsen
 

Anthony Albanese is pushing for a referendum to change the constitution to recognise the role of First Nations people in Australia’s history.

 

Slowly the Voice debate is swinging to issues like property ownership, rent and the allocation of government revenue.

 

I could say welcome to my country, but it is a very unwelcome country.

 

On election night last May, among the most inspiring words of our newly elected Prime Minister Anthony Albanese was his embrace of a referendum to change the constitution to recognise the role of First Nations people in Australia’s history.

 

Albanese aimed to bring together our past and our present and end current and future basic differences.

 

At the time, like most Australians without Aboriginal heritage, I knew very little about how the so-called voice would work, but the Prime Minister’s sentiments made me an early supporter.

Then the detail started to emerge, and it became apparent that we were being asked to vote on a proposal without full knowledge of what the legislation to be passed by parliament would contain. I found this both strange and disturbing.

 

Then came constitutional experts, who warned us that while the proposed wording change to the constitution might look innocuous to a lay person, keywords had legal meanings which the High Court could easily interpret to give the First Nations body very wide approval powers over the actions of the parliament of Australia. Almost certainly that would include the federal budget.

 

The Australian’s legal affairs writer Chris Merritt, who is also vice-president of the Rule of Law Institute of Australia, explains that the constitutional provision has been drafted in a way that would permit the First Nations body to dissipate its efforts across the entire range of federal public policy – a very powerful body indeed.

 

More recently the debate has taken an even more dangerous course and a group of First Nation people led by a member of the upper House of the federal parliament now opposes the Voice referendum because it inhibits First Nations’ rights to be declared the real owners of all land in Australia.

 

Some people in this group take the natural next step and say that as people with Aboriginal heritage own the land, those who occupying it should pay rent.

 

The Greens, whose support the government needs to pass most of it controversial legislation, say the voice is merely a first step and a “treaty” must follow. The word “treaty” in this context usually means property ownership and rent.

 

We are now looking at a potential attack not just on the power of our parliament but our capital system, which operates on the basis people who buy, and mortgage property have title to the land.

It’s possible – maybe even likely – that reference to land ownership will be contained in this so far secret legislation.

 

Perhaps that’s why it’s being kept secret.

 

In normal circumstances when groups of people or individuals want to reconcile their views and move forward, then any issues involving property, money or rent must be put on the table as part of the reconciliation. If not addressed, then such issues will arise again and again.

 

Now that section of the First Nation community has raised the issue of property and rent to be paid by Australian householders and commercial property “owners” for occupying land they “don’t own” the issue is in the table.

 

The government is pouring very large sums into places like Alice Springs, and the overall Australian community has little concept of just how this money is being distributed.

 

The same applies to the large royalties being paid by mining companies.

 

Reconciliation is not all one way. It should be a two-way exercise, with both sides coming together and prepared to give ground.

 

In this context, Australian land covering large parts of WA, SA, NSW Queensland and Northern Territory has the potential to be used as major solar power generation sites and for the growth of carbon absorbing plants like saltbush.

 

This will be highly remunerative. The land is part of Aboriginal land rights. We need to talk about these things now, rather than leave it to heated debates later.

 

I don’t pretend to have any knowledge of the forces that are causing First Nations people to attack each other and wreck property.

 

Obviously alcohol plays a big role, but I suspect deep in the background is the way the abundant cash is being distributed and the difficulty of First Nations people in those areas have in owning a house.

We are now discovering in our capital cities and regional areas that when you spray money into a community, as we did in JobKeeper, it can have bad impacts on the younger generation irrespective of their colour or racial origins.

 

We are rushing into a referendum that is great superficial community appeal where we have not sorted out the details and kept some of the details that have been sorted out secret. Lasting reconciliation agreements negotiate these things first. By rushing we may head into an area of dispute it will last many decades.

 

Finally, our Prime Minister is telling us that the new parliamentary body will not impact the broader workings of the nation’s parliament.

 

I suspect most of the nation is like me and wants to believe him, but the Prime Minister is not a constitutional expert and those with far more knowledge of this subject are warning us that he is wrong.

 

ROBERT GOTTLIEBSEN 

BUSINESS COLUMNIST

Robert Gottliebsen has spent more than 50 years writing and commentating about business and investment in Australia. He has won the Walkley award and Australian Journalist of the Year award.

 

Share this article

What a pile of shit.

[Marty_d]

8 hours ago, Bruce Tuncks said:

I like Albo. I reckon he is going through the motions of this voice thing because he is fulfilling a promise and he is doing that to the best of his ability. I feel sorry for Dutton. He is by no means stupid, but he looks too much like Voldemort to get elected.

I would change my vote on the voice if the pro side could come up with a good statement on the lawlessness at Alice Springs...  for example, that the law should be applied equally regardless of race.

Alas, I reckon they will do the opposite and Alice Springs will fade away.

I don't feel sorry for Dutton.  No one forced him to become the public face if the "No" side. He had an opportunity to show true leadership and bipartisanship, but chose instead division and dog-whistling which has pretty much become the LNP's default position in recent years. 

Now his party is disintegrating and (in my opinion) on the wrong side of history.  The moderates like Bridget Archer and Julian Leeser are distancing themselves from Dutton and the other hardliners. 

No, he can't help looking like Voldemort,  but no-one forces him to act the way he does. 

Edited April 18, 2023 by Marty_d

[Jerry_Atrick]

Wow! I go to London for one day, and *pow* - a bit of a hot debate is on! 

 

First, I agree with Red; this is a politics forum, and this thread is about the Voice; and, well, if the article is reflective of Red's (or anyone else's) views; or it is being introduced as a talking point, well, that is fine.. we should be open to other views and comment on them accordingly, preferably with some facts or theory to back it up.

 

But, I certainly agree with this:

20 hours ago, red750 said:

Makes one wonder Who is telling us what !!!!

Because, this is making me wonder exactly that.. who is telling us what - and why? But, in the spirit of good form, let's look at the argument and not the man (i.e. Gottliebsen):

 

20 hours ago, red750 said:

Slowly the Voice debate is swinging to issues like property ownership, rent and the allocation of government revenue.

 

I could say welcome to my country, but it is a very unwelcome country.

OK.. I don't get all the Aussie news; I usually check ABC, Fairfax (SMH or The Age), and Bloomberg Australia; as well as the YouTube channels I subscribe to.. And, of course, afl.com.au. But I have not heard the Voice debate swing to property ownership and the allocation of government revenue per se. And if it has, I would suggest it limited to the Murdoch media, where, we may as well be reading about yet another spitfire that landed on the moon and at least enjoy the page 3 girls, which are no longer apparently (ahh, Samantha Fox; many a newsagent window did your poster fill).  

 

What he means by the second sentence, I have no idea. Maybe I am reading it too literally, but if someone could enlighten me, I would appreciate it. 

 

20 hours ago, red750 said:

Then the detail started to emerge, and it became apparent that we were being asked to vote on a proposal without full knowledge of what the legislation to be passed by parliament would contain. 

Am I the only one to be confused by the apparent contradiction of this sentence.. The detail started to emerge.. means that there is detail - but without full knowledge of what the legislation is? There is no knowledge of what the legislation is.. So, there can't be detail... And the Libs are wanting to go with No because of not enough detail. So, this seems to be a nonsense statement at best. 

 

20 hours ago, red750 said:

Then came constitutional experts, who warned us that while the proposed wording change to the constitution might look innocuous to a lay person, keywords had legal meanings which the High Court could easily interpret to give the First Nations body very wide approval powers over the actions of the parliament of Australia. Almost certainly that would include the federal budget.

OK.. which constitutional experts and which words are used which would give The Voice approval powers at all, let alone the actions of the parliament of Australia. Remember this assertion. 

 

 

20 hours ago, red750 said:

The Australian’s legal affairs writer Chris Merritt, who is also vice-president of the Rule of Law Institute of Australia, explains that the constitutional provision has been drafted in a way that would permit the First Nations body to dissipate its efforts across the entire range of federal public policy – a very powerful body indeed.

 https://www.afr.com/rear-window/who-is-funding-the-mysterious-rule-of-law-institute-20211129-p59d5r. And you can't tell me the AFR is an ALP sycophantic news organisation. A quote: "And Merritt, they [Labour representatives of whatever  committee they were on] said, “had no relevant expertise and, perhaps for that reason, was unable or unwilling to engage in specific discussion”."  As far as I can tell, these credentials stated in the article are not particularly official nor of great credibility. 

 

Again, remember that sentence for later... 

 

20 hours ago, red750 said:

This will be highly remunerative. The land is part of Aboriginal land rights. We need to talk about these things now, rather than leave it to heated debates later.

There was a lot of blurb before this that had little relevance to the discussion and assertions; And, in reality, neither does this. Aboriginal Land rights are already implemented through the two Mabo cases and subsequent Aboriginal Land Rights Acts (commonwealth of Australia and respective states). This exists today, so he is clearly talking out of his posterior. 

 

20 hours ago, red750 said:

I don’t pretend to have any knowledge of the forces that are causing First Nations people to attack each other and wreck property.

 

Obviously alcohol plays a big role, but I suspect deep in the background is the way the abundant cash is being distributed and the difficulty of First Nations people in those areas have in owning a house.

I am glad he doesn't pretend to know the issues; However,  Isn't the Voice one way to get to know them? He can suspect all he likes - it is mere speculation.

 

20 hours ago, red750 said:

We are rushing into a referendum that is great superficial community appeal where we have not sorted out the details and kept some of the details that have been sorted out secret. Lasting reconciliation agreements negotiate these things first. By rushing we may head into an area of dispute it will last many decades.

 

Finally, our Prime Minister is telling us that the new parliamentary body will not impact the broader workings of the nation’s parliament.

 

I suspect most of the nation is like me and wants to believe him, but the Prime Minister is not a constitutional expert and those with far more knowledge of this subject are warning us that he is wrong.

I hardly call this rushing; and the details of most referendums are rarely sorted to any more level than The Voice (except when Johnnie wanted the republic referendum to fail). As I highlighted previously, look at the simple wording in the constitution to govern one of the more complex functions - the defence of the country. 

 

Our PM is telling us it won't affect the broader workings of the nations parliament because the wording restricts its consultative function to those that affect indigenous people. And, yes, Albo is not a constitutional expert, but, like Gottleibesen alleges he has, Albo would certainly have enrolled constitutional experts to draft the wording. Of course, I only speculate that, too. 

 

This seems to be a reasonable source of the referendum: https://www.niaa.gov.au/indigenous-affairs/referendum-aboriginal-and-torres-strait-islander-voice

 

And I quote the intended constitutional wording:

"Chapter IX Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples
129 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice
In recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia:

1. There shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice; 
2. The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice may make representations to the Parliament and the Executive Government of the Commonwealth on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples;
3. The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws with respect to matters relating to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, including its composition, functions, powers and procedures.”
4.  

Contrary to Gottliebsen's assertion, there is actually quite a bit of detail here.. probably enough for a judge to rule on the constitutionality of any legislation. 

 

In reference to special terms that lay people would not normally understand - well, I can't see any. Maybe the strict definition of ATSI would have it. But interestingly, there is a phrase which definitely limits the power of the Voice and nullifies any argument that it will have all encompassing powers over Australian government and take your land, rape your wives and whatever else Gottliebsen or his mate, Merritt (or lack thereo, is imagining. That simple phrase is, "subject to this Constitution".. In other words, no function of government can take the advice of The Voice to act outside the constitution, and in the absence of any other wording changes to the constitution, I would suggest it means that all protections offered today remain. 

 

Also, there is nothing in this text which even comes close to granting The Voice approval powers.. unless legal terminology suddenly became repugnant to English, which despite popular belief, is not. Specific legal terms are usually defined by their historic meaning (e.g. leave, as in leave to appeal, in the legal sense, means permission), or because they are defined either within the Act itself or some definitions Act. There are no specific words that seem to appear in the above. 

 

[Edit] And I can't see how anyone can pass judgement on the proposed wording, as it is not finalised yet, and will be handed down in mid-May. In addition, from within the Libs, there is a splinter group mobilising the Libs for Yes campaign: https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/domino-effect-liberal-supporters-of-the-voice-preparing-formal-yes-campaign-20230414-p5d0f6.html

 

Has anyone noticed how the Fairfax media have turned on Dutton since he announced a No campaign. It is rare for Fairfax to turn on the libs quite that badly. Last two times I remember was the end of the Frazer years, and ScoMo.

 

Verdict - don't care if he is a Wakely award winner - if you go to their website, virtually every senior journo in Aus has won something...  I concur with Marty - it is quite the load of:

 

 

 

Edited April 18, 2023 by Jerry_Atrick

[Jerry_Atrick]

19 hours ago, red750 said:

Stands to reason they will demand it back and want us to pay for it.

Can you point to an independent quote.. Stands to reason they want to, and do want to are two different things.

[old man emu]

2 hours ago, Jerry_Atrick said:

Voice may make representations

There's the Devil in the detail that everyone misses. Three little letters that have more power in Law that the total potential energy of all the Nations' nuclear weapons gathered together.

 

Those three letters represent the word "may". The only definition of it I could find exists in the Australian Capital Territory's LEGISLATION ACT 2001 - SECT 146

Meaning of may and must

    (1)     In an Act or statutory instrument, the word "may", or a similar term, used in relation to a function indicates that the function may be exercised or not exercised, at discretion.

    (2)     In an Act or statutory instrument, the word "must", or a similar term, used in relation to a function indicates that the function is required to be exercised.

 

That definition of the two words  is mainly undefined in legislation because it falls under the concept of "commonly accepted". 

 

So, by included "may" in the proposed change, there is no obligation of Government even to open a letter from the "body".

[Bruce Tuncks]

I still am waiting for somebody to suggest a way out of the lawlessness at Alice Springs.

It has been suggested that whiteman's money and alcohol are to blame, but nobody has suggested taking these things away.

As a long-term resident from Alice Springs, may I point out that enmity between tribes predated white arrival by a great many years, I suggest 40,000.

AND,  I suggest that it is only among north-western europeans  that anything like care for those worse-off even begins to factor in....   from the abolition of slavery to the emancipation of women, to being genuinely non-racist, these are all accomplishments of a very small group of humans. Who else would preferentially give vaccines to "indigenous" before your own?

My take on the current lawlessness is that we have been too soft and not given enough tough love. For example, I would have anybody ( whites too ) have to walk home from the WA border as punishment  for an offence.

[old man emu]

Trouble with Aborigines in those remote places is that if you lock them up they die.

[Jerry_Atrick]

3 hours ago, Bruce Tuncks said:

It has been suggested that whiteman's money and alcohol are to blame, but nobody has suggested taking these things away.

Er, not taking alcohol away entirely, but introducing restrictions: https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/feb/06/nt-reinstates-alcohol-bans-in-effort-to-curb-surge-in-alice-springs

 

2 hours ago, old man emu said:

Trouble with Aborigines in those remote places is that if you lock them up they die.

Hopefully not all of them, but why is that?

 

[old man emu]

They say that they die because they are pining for "country". Or maybe it's an escape from  discipline.Something that they have never been exposed to.

[facthunter]

They had it in their original Tribal structure but  now they run riot because the "family' are getting pissed  etc and don't control them.

[Jerry_Atrick]

Well, the solicitor general begs to differ wiith Robert Gottliebsen: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-04-21/voice-to-parliament-legally-sound-says-solicitor-general/102250768

 

Yes, the uinredacted advice has not been released, but *if* the release is accurate (and to be honest, the ability of the government to imply there was total support for teh NACC makes me slightly suspiciou), then the question is no longer of a legal nature, but one of ethics, values, and morality.

[spacesailor]

It's getting more devious by the week .

Who's next on the podium  !, Elton Musk .  LoL

spacesailor

[Bruce Tuncks]

I agree that locking aborigines up is a terrible thing to do, which is why I advocate "walkabout". Walking home from the WA border would be educational and physically good for those made to do it, especially including those whites among them.

But I hasten to say that you can't expect too much from a punishment, look at the history of  "penitentiaries" to see this.

[Jerry_Atrick]

I don't necessarily agree with the walking home from teh WA border, but I do get your drift, @Bruce Tuncks. I think a walkabout - not only for Aboriginals, but for kinds, and some grown ups may well alleviate a lot of society ills. Spend a bit of time by yourse3lf, or with close friends/relations, where the environment compells one to make decisions would probably be more theraperutic than the myriad of other therapies on offer.