Select to expand quote

Paradox said..

It is incredibly dangerous and incredibly stupid to change the Constitution on a whim or for ideological purposes.

It's also incredibly stupid to not change the constitution when required
Just look at how the US constitution makes sensible gun laws over there so easy to pass.

Select to expand quote

Mr Milk said..

Absolutely. /s
Just look at how the US constitution makes sensible gun laws over there so easy to pass.

Depends on your definition of sensible laws. The reason the US has guns is because most Americans want them.

Democracy at its best I suppose.

Select to expand quote

Paradox said..
I think it is relevent in the context of what is being claimed regarding reparations, native title etc.

And yes, DNA is a remarkable thing. It has been found that the inhabitants of mainland Australia were distinct from those in Papua and Tasmania and are more closely aligned with a migration out of India about 10-12k years ago (using DNA). Thier common ancestor was well before Australia was inhabited and the mainland languages can be traced back to no more than 10k years ago.

Tasmanian DNA is closely aligned with the Papuan DNA and is traced back to a migration about 40k years ago when there were land bridges between the Islands and the Mainland.

Adding the dots is not hard. Invasion and displacement was not a modern thing in Australia.

It really doesn't matter. Surely the DNA changes around Australia as different groups were influenced/interbred with those around them. I expect that traders along the path took Aboriginal wives from time to time, so the DNA is not original.

But it doesn't matter. Me, it somewhat rankles me that some people loudly proclaim 'Aboriginality' when they easily pass as European and have never had to endure the racism that some other Aboriginals do. Clearly their DNA is much more European than Aboriginals 200 years ago, so you could argue that a lot of the people around today have very different DNA to those 300 years ago, so what does 10k years matter? 40k years? So what.

I hope the point of this referendum is to make a path to create better care for Aboriginal communities and address issues that they have that don't seem to be addressed properly at the moment.

When you start talking DNA, when do you turn around and use it to define a group of people and what standard do you use to do that? Does culture count for anything or is it just the random genes you have?

I also hate it when people suddenly identify as Scottish or Irish when they and their forebears have been living in Australia for 100 years.

Select to expand quote

Subsonic said..
Perhaps have a better read of nom 3.

Whilst it will initially be advisory only, the government can create laws that relate directly to what the voice can do, and what role they will play. It quite clearly says that they may through law be granted power, and how they function may also be changed.
.

So we are to completely ignore that our politicians are elected by us and are needed to pass any bill in parliament? Sure, I agree that I wouldn't trust many of them, but they do represent us and if they vote for bills that the majority do not want, then we can lobby them or vote them out.

Politicians are simple. They look after their role first, and the rest second.

I doubt a block of politicians are just going to stand up one day and pass a bill to give 'the Voice' powers to resume land. Maybe in Trump-land, but not in this reality.

I think there could be two seperate votes going on.

One that argues the voice is a power grab by a minority that will lead to the end of Australian life as we know it.

The other believe the voice is an attempt to improve the lot of a disadvantaged group.

Its a tough one?

Select to expand quote

Paradox said...


Depends on your definition of sensible laws. The reason the US has guns is because most Americans want them.

Democracy at its best I suppose.

"About six-in-ten U.S. adults (58%) favor stricter gun laws."

The Yes vote decides that the majority will dictate now how their tax dollars will be spent on Aboriginal services (vaguely).

However, future generations won't be able to decide this

Select to expand quote

FormulaNova said..

Subsonic said..
Perhaps have a better read of nom 3.

Whilst it will initially be advisory only, the government can create laws that relate directly to what the voice can do, and what role they will play. It quite clearly says that they may through law be granted power, and how they function may also be changed.
.

So we are to completely ignore that our politicians are elected by us and are needed to pass any bill in parliament? Sure, I agree that I wouldn't trust many of them, but they do represent us and if they vote for bills that the majority do not want, then we can lobby them or vote them out.

Politicians are simple. They look after their role first, and the rest second.

I doubt a block of politicians are just going to stand up one day and pass a bill to give 'the Voice' powers to resume land. Maybe in Trump-land, but not in this reality.

I don't know about you, but when i vote i'm trying to vote for who i perceive to be the least bad of a really bad bunch. The idealistic humanitarianism they may start with is very quickly swept away once they're in.

To quote one of my favourite black adder quotes "i'd sooner place my john thomas in the hand of a mad man holding a set of shears than trust a politician. "



but anyway, i was just clarifying for you, since you stated that they would be advisory only with no real power. They quite possibly will have some power at some point. To do what, not sure. Better to be safe than sorry. And the wording of the question is far too simplistic to be trusted coming from politicians. Especially when you read nom 3 of the constitutional change.

Select to expand quote

Subsonic said..

but anyway, i was just clarifying for you, since you stated that they would be advisory only with no real power. They quite possibly will have some power at some point. To do what, not sure. Better to be safe than sorry. And the wording of the question is far too simplistic to be trusted coming from politicians. Especially when you read nom 3 of the constitutional change.

The good(?) thing about politics is that usually the politicians represent the public. I am sure there are some politicians that would rather stab themselves in the eye than vote for left-leaning politics, so we are quite safe.

I can't imagine we would ever end up with 'The Voice' having any real power based on the politicians currently in power. If they went against the general consensus, then something would be seriously broken.

Select to expand quote

Subsonic said..
...
but anyway, i was just clarifying for you, since you stated that they would be advisory only with no real power. They quite possibly will have some power at some point. To do what, not sure. Better to be safe than sorry. And the wording of the question is far too simplistic to be trusted coming from politicians. Especially when you read nom 3 of the constitutional change.

I'm thinking that a change to "some power at some point" would require another constitutional change. The Voice is simply a "referendum to recognise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia through an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice enshrined in our Constitution." Its recognition not a treaty. If you don't know, and can't be bothered learning, don't bother casting a valid vote. Leave it to the people who care.

Did American have a referendum for their first amendment? If so, did the ballot form suggest a likely increase in school shootings?

Select to expand quote

psychojoe said..
Did American have a referendum for their first amendment? If so, did the ballot form suggest a likely increase in school shootings?

Did the Founding Fathers predict daily mass-shootings and weekly school-shootings when they wrote, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."?

A success of this referendum will result in the destruction of the greatest liberal democracy in the world.
A success of this referendum will not help those indigenous people in the most need.
A success of this referendum will enrich and empower the elites of the "Black/White Industry" such as the likes of Noel Pearson, Marcia Langton and others as well as a brigade of lawyers and beaurocrats.
A success of this referendum will hand control of this country to a people who claim to the first people on this continent despite much evidence to the contrary.
A people who claim to have been here for 60,000 years during which time they made absolutely no progress beyond being stone age nomadic hunter gatherers. They had spears, clubs and throwing sticks. They did not even have the bow and arrow!!
A people who failed to develop any social structure beyond the family group, tribe or clans who were constantly fighting each other.
A people who, and this is documented all over the country, practised infanticide and cannibalism up until as late as the 1950s. Watch this.



The Yes campaign relies on emotive issues.The No campaign is analytical and forward thinking.

We live in a liberal democracy where ALL poeple are equal in the eyes of the law. Ask yourself, Do I really want to change that?????

Select to expand quote

psychojoe said..
Did American have a referendum for their first amendment? If so, did the ballot form suggest a likely increase in school shootings?

The one about free speech?
And the answer is no. It was an amendment to the Constitution 2 years after it was adopted.
The USA does not change their constitution by referenda. It is done by putting a ratification through the states' legislatures.
But I thought a legal scholar like yourself would have that as part of your general knowledge

Select to expand quote

sgo said..
I apologise for my ignorance. After reading your response I now understand that we shouldn't mess with the constitution on a whim.
It is best that we disregard those that asked for voice, and there's no reason to try and improve things by listening to those affected. We've done such a great job in my lifetime so best leave things as they are.
Thanks for clearing all that up for me.

Yup, that's like I feel. I'm willing to do what I think is right to lift up our indigenous people. I think it's been a good discussion for Australia.

Whatever the outcome, I would like to see a fairer Australia for our first inhabitants.

Select to expand quote

cisco said..
A success of this referendum will result in the destruction of the greatest liberal democracy in the world.
A success of this referendum will not help those indigenous people in the most need.
A success of this referendum will enrich and empower the elites of the "Black/White Industry" such as the likes of Noel Pearson, Marcia Langton and others as well as a brigade of lawyers and beaurocrats.
A success of this referendum will hand control of this country to a people who claim to the first people on this continent despite much evidence to the contrary.
A people who claim to have been here for 60,000 years during which time they made absolutely no progress beyond being stone age nomadic hunter gatherers. They had spears, clubs and throwing sticks. They did not even have the bow and arrow!!
A people who failed to develop any social structure beyond the family group, tribe or clans who were constantly fighting each other.
A people who, and this is documented all over the country, practised infanticide and cannibalism up until as late as the 1950s. Watch this.

The Yes campaign relies on emotive issues.The No campaign is analytical and forward thinking.

We live in a liberal democracy where ALL poeple are equal in the eyes of the law. Ask yourself, Do I really want to change that?????

Totally fact-free post above, full of uninformed opinion and secondhand 19th century perspectives.
Same crap was being spouted 30 years ago when the Mabo ruling came out. Disaster! The sky is falling! It didn't then and it won't now.

Select to expand quote

Shifu said..
Totally fact-free post above, full of uninformed opinion and secondhand 19th century perspectives.
Same crap was being spouted 30 years ago when the Mabo ruling came out. Disaster! The sky is falling! It didn't then and it won't now.

I take issue with the claim that aboriginals made no progress beyond the stone age. Clearly these idiots suggesting this have not thought it through and just want to pretend that they are somehow superior.

What have 'you' invented in your lifetime?

Is the Australian continent good for farming? Where do the crops come from? Are there any domesticable animals/livestock? Sure, it sounds easy, but if you actually had to develop here without the benefit of domesticated crops and domesticated animals, you would be doing it tough.

One of my favorite books is Guns Germs and Steel, if only because it points out that its not a given that people can develop anywhere.

People are the same all around the world and intelligence does not vary that much, so inferring that somehow other people are inferior because they did not build space shuttles is just stupid, proving that intelligence varies in populations...

Select to expand quote

myscreenname said..
Yup, that's like I feel. I'm willing to do what I think is right to lift up our indigenous people. I think it's been a good discussion for Australia.

Whatever the outcome, I would like to see a fairer Australia for our first inhabitants.

I detect a theme

We need a DNA analysis clause in the constitution!

All I can see about the proposed law is that it sets the Department of Aboriginal affairs as a permanent body.
Nobody seems to get too upset about the Defence Forces having the ear of government and a Minister.
Or the doctors having input to the Health department (though their advice on how much they should be paid seems to be ignored)
So what's wrong with that?

Select to expand quote

remery said..

Subsonic said..
...
but anyway, i was just clarifying for you, since you stated that they would be advisory only with no real power. They quite possibly will have some power at some point. To do what, not sure. Better to be safe than sorry. And the wording of the question is far too simplistic to be trusted coming from politicians. Especially when you read nom 3 of the constitutional change.

I'm thinking that a change to "some power at some point" would require another constitutional change. The Voice is simply a "referendum to recognise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia through an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice enshrined in our Constitution." Its recognition not a treaty. If you don't know, and can't be bothered learning, don't bother casting a valid vote. Leave it to the people who care.

Whilst it would certainly stand as some form of recognition, it's not what you've stated at all. You should perhaps read the actual paragraphs that will be entered into the constitution if "yes" gets over the line. These have been conveniently provided by formulanova further back in the thread.

Whilst it's not a given that it will occur, if "yes" wins the day, no further constitutional change will be required. The government will be able to create law giving the voice to parliament committee "power" as the government sees fit. That's stated quite clearly, if you bothered to read.


It's important that everyone of age can have their say in a referendum, especially where constitutional change may occur. I would never suggest that another person should forego a valid response because I don't like the way they're going to "vote". nor will I ever hold it against them at a later date. But I will say this right now. Some will write their response with their rose coloured glasses on, no further knowledge needed or wanted. I would hope others will do a slight amount of research and write whatever they're going to write, in full knowledge of what their response could lead to, or not lead to.

I quoted directly from voice.gov.au. You should perhaps read that.

Select to expand quote

remery said..
I quoted directly from voice.gov.au. You should perhaps read that.

Perhaps you should follow your own advice and have a proper read of the exact constitutional changes.
taken directly from www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjmsrvziNqBAxVNs1YBHe7XC30QjBB6BAgNEAE&url=https%3A%2F%2Fvoice.gov.au%2Freferendum-2023%2Freferendum-question-and-constitutional-amendment&usg=AOvVaw0q3aT5ZZzVvRxJGPm2DbPn&opi=89978449








Pay particular attention to the third part.

Part 3 : so parliament has full control over all aspects and functions of the voice.

And further any following parliament can make changes as they see fit.

Seems safe enough to stop any voice getting out of control?

Select to expand quote

sgo said..
Part 3 : so parliament has full control over all aspects and functions of the voice.

And further any following parliament can make changes as they see fit.

Seems safe enough to stop any voice getting out of control?

No, you forgot to read that with the spooky music in the background so that you can imply only negative consequences.

Clearly if parliament can give this group some powers, they can remove them, and ultimately the politicians will bend to the will of the majority.

Simple.

Select to expand quote

remery said..

"About six-in-ten U.S. adults (58%) favor stricter gun laws."

Probably true. But stricter gun laws is very different from removing the second amendment.

People in the US want the right to have thier own guns, but don't want others to have them.

Select to expand quote

sgo said..
Part 3 : so parliament has full control over all aspects and functions of the voice.

And further any following parliament can make changes as they see fit.

Seems safe enough to stop any voice getting out of control?

If that is the case, why do we need a change to the constitution?

The power is given through the consitution, not Parliment. If it is parliment creating the power, then there is no need for a constitutional change is there?

People are just not getting this logical fallacy being sold.

Select to expand quote

remery said..

Its recognition not a treaty.

This is not true. If it was just recognition this referendum would likely get up. It is recognition by the establishment of a Voice, which is a very different kettle of fish.

The Voice is not recognition. It is a constitutionally enshrined representative body that can make representations to Parlimiment and is supprted by the High Court. The Voice is part of the Uluru Statement From the Heart, which this government says will be implemented in full.

The Uluru Statement clearly outlines Self Determination, Treaty, Reparations in perpetuity based in GDP, recovery of stolen land, access to water, land and mineral rights.

Select to expand quote

Paradox said..

sgo said..
Part 3 : so parliament has full control over all aspects and functions of the voice.

And further any following parliament can make changes as they see fit.

Seems safe enough to stop any voice getting out of control?

If that is the case, why do we need a change to the constitution?

The power is given through the consitution, not Parliment. If it is parliment creating the power, then there is no need for a constitutional change is there?

People are just not getting this logical fallacy being sold.

I think that it's a bit of a political thing. A gesture as much as any aid to implementing a better method of helping out Aboriginal communities.

Sometimes a gesture can be a positive thing, in this case probably making indigenous people think that they have more say in things. The downside is if the same bad characters that ruin other organisations get in, then the same problems of greed and mismanagement will arise.

I would be happier if they (the pollies) insisted that the leadership in this groups were changed every year or two to stop some despot getting in charge and running it for his own benefit.

So, if it is just a gesture, and powers can be removed as easily as they are added, what is the harm?

Just
#voteoften

Haha this system is a joke. No ID checks, etc.

People can vote on behalf of their relatives, maybe even deceased ones.

What does a retired Supreme Court of WA think about the wording?

fb.watch/nssZxnTp3Y/?mibextid=NnVzG8