The Voice. An Australian referendum

Recidivist

Super Anarchist
More factual information to keep the fact lovers informed. :)

snippets from

<snip>

Anne Twomey, professor of constitutional law at the University of Sydney, agreed.

She noted that the Voice would not be able to "initiate, debate, pass or defeat bills and would not have any of the powers or privileges of the existing houses".

Even the suggestion that parliament would need agreement from the Voice to make legislation was "wrong", she added, likening the Voice to other bodies which make recommendations and reports to parliament, such as the Human Rights Commission and the Australian Law Reform Commission.
The last time I read the Australian Constitution (which was only a couple of days ago), I didn't notice any references to the HRC or the ALRC. If the "Voice" is so similar, why would it need specific Constitutional mention?
 

Ease the sheet.

ignoring stupid people is easy
19,942
2,166
The last time I read the Australian Constitution (which was only a couple of days ago), I didn't notice any references to the HRC or the ALRC. If the "Voice" is so similar, why would it need specific Constitutional mention?
It doesn't.
However, placing it in the constitution takes it out of the politician's hands.
 

ShortForBob

Super Anarchist
34,891
2,777
Melbourne
I may join the fray in due course when we have more information re the actual question that is to be put to the masses...however in the meantime will chuckle internally at the usual shit flinging between the usual suspects :cool:
Yep. That's what the thread's for. laters.
 

ShortForBob

Super Anarchist
34,891
2,777
Melbourne
The last time I read the Australian Constitution (which was only a couple of days ago), I didn't notice any references to the HRC or the ALRC. If the "Voice" is so similar, why would it need specific Constitutional mention?
Because the HRC doesn't get abolished at the whim of government. It's UN protected.
Like The ABC, the HRC is a constant thorn in the side of Government and no Gov would dare to abolish it.

Your question is really about whether you think that "we are all Australians now" (like immigrants that choose to come here) and ATSI people should just accept that they are a conquered people and move on OR you think they were never consulted, had no choice and are entitled to their culture and have the tiny vestige left, protected by elected custodians and protected in the Constitution.

Simple as that.

official ATSI bodies come and go
 

Ease the sheet.

ignoring stupid people is easy
19,942
2,166
Not being argumentative, but I don't actually understand what that is intended to mean.
But I admire your optimism ...
Changes to constitution require referendums. Obviously difficult to change.

Legislated or regulated bodies can be modified anytime by politicians.
 

Fah Kiew Tu

Curmudgeon, First Rank
10,062
3,241
Tasmania, Australia
The last time I read the Australian Constitution (which was only a couple of days ago), I didn't notice any references to the HRC or the ALRC. If the "Voice" is so similar, why would it need specific Constitutional mention?

So that if/when it goes the way of ATSIC, it can't be abolished. Once established, it'll take another referendum to remove it.

Which is why one needs to think very carefully about the exact form of words to determine what you're voting for because if there's a Yes vote sufficient to establish it, we're all stuck with it for a long, long time.

And so far, I can't tell just who is eligible to vote or be elected/appointed to this Voice let alone what constraints on its behaviour, funding etc etc are proposed. No detail equals a NO vote from me.

FKT
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mid

ShortForBob

Super Anarchist
34,891
2,777
Melbourne
As far as I understand it to date, the proposal in the referendum will simply be that there BE a body. A single sentence.
No one has suggested that that body will have permanently fixed form or regulations enshrined in the C.
 

ShortForBob

Super Anarchist
34,891
2,777
Melbourne
here you go. Couple of days ago


The three suggested sentences to be added to the Constitution
  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 Parliament and the Executive Government 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 the composition, functions, powers and procedures of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice.

But that's still being wrangled over.

Many are still confused

 

FinnFish

Super Anarchist
3,906
423
So that if/when it goes the way of ATSIC, it can't be abolished. Once established, it'll take another referendum to remove it.

Which is why one needs to think very carefully about the exact form of words to determine what you're voting for because if there's a Yes vote sufficient to establish it, we're all stuck with it for a long, long time.

And so far, I can't tell just who is eligible to vote or be elected/appointed to this Voice let alone what constraints on its behaviour, funding etc etc are proposed. No detail equals a NO vote from me.

FKT
Exactly. It's 'democratic exercise' controlled by politicians and unelected public servants. We'll be asked to provide a simple Yes/No answer to a complex constitutional change with no detail of the change, its implementation or reach.
 

LB 15

Cunt
What about this bloke for president? He can be any colour you like!

D6C2D604-D034-4D20-B509-732410805190.jpeg
 

Recidivist

Super Anarchist
Because the HRC doesn't get abolished at the whim of government. It's UN protected.
Like The ABC, the HRC is a constant thorn in the side of Government and no Gov would dare to abolish it.

Your question is really about whether you think that "we are all Australians now" (like immigrants that choose to come here) and ATSI people should just accept that they are a conquered people and move on OR you think they were never consulted, had no choice and are entitled to their culture and have the tiny vestige left, protected by elected custodians and protected in the Constitution.

Simple as that.

official ATSI bodies come and go
It's not as simple as "that" at all. Those 2 thought bubbles that you made up do not represent the gamut of views and considerations of all indigenous persons, let alone the broader Australian population.

And this
  • The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws with respect to the composition, functions, powers and procedures of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice.
negates the whole point about amending the Constitution.
 

ShortForBob

Super Anarchist
34,891
2,777
Melbourne
It's not as simple as "that" at all. Those 2 thought bubbles that you made up do not represent the gamut of views and considerations of all indigenous persons, let alone the broader Australian population.

And this
  • The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws with respect to the composition, functions, powers and procedures of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice.
negates the whole point about amending the Constitution.
No it doesn't.
 




Top