HD Forums Australia
Home
Topics

The voice poll vote: YES or NO

5/8
  • Grease Monkey
    Grease Monkey
    2 years ago
    Choc reckons vote no because to vote yes would make Aboriginals British subjects.....clear as mud this. I got the flyer yesterday, will force myself to read it this weekend, perhaps it will provide some clarity........maybe.
  • T4
    T4
    2 years ago
    Referendumb.JPG
  • obisteve
    obisteve
    2 years ago
    Haven't  got ours yet. Might ride up to the post office tomorrow.
    Hoody, you're right  there isn't anything in the proposed amendment that reinforces that it doesn't affect freehold title. That's because they don't include what it doesn't do, only what it does. When the tried to get rid of the communist party in the 1951 referendum, they said that it was a change to abolish the communist party, without going on to say that it didn't affect the Navigation act of 1920 or the Commonwealth's ability to make laws about lighthouses, or any of the other stuff it didn't affect.
    The current proposed change is carefully worded but pretty plain, to set up an indigenous voice to advise parliament. If the referendum is passed  they are limited by the constitution to doing just that, what people have voted on.
    The constitution only protects freehold title indirectly, by mentioning in article 51 (I think, it's been a while) that the commonwealth can only compulsorily acquire title if they offer just compensation. The real protection comes from English common law.
    The idea that native title could affect freehold was never refuted, it was contained it the High court decision in Mabo vs Qld #2 1993. Before that native title wasn't even a concept, the court decision that recognised it existed said that it existed only for crown land. There were some differing opinions about if it affected commonwealth leased land, but absolutely no thought that it applied to freehold land. The commonwealth then had to put the concept of native title into legislation, which they did the following year, again without letting it affect freehold title.
    So there is absolutely no way that setting up an indigenous voice to advise parliament threatens freehold title. The Solicitor Generals legal opinion on this is freely available online.
    Now we all know that politicians can do dumbarse things even without listening to any advice, but if they want your freehold land the have to offer just compensation, the constitution tells them so. If they want to change that, they would have to hold a referendum to amend article 51, and be open about that in the vote for the amendment. How well do you think that would go?
    Sorry to make it so long, sometimes it takes a while to go through stuff simply.

  • 408
    408
    2 years ago
    Quoting obisteve on 31 Aug 2023 10:54 AM

    Haven't  got ours yet. Might ride up to the post office tomorrow.

    Hoody, you're right  there isn't anything in the proposed amendment that reinforces that it doesn't affect freehold title. That's because they don't include what it doesn't do, only what it does. When the tried to get rid of the communist party in the 1951 referendum, they said that it was a change to abolish the communist party, without going on to say that it didn't affect the Navigation act of 1920 or the Commonwealth's ability to make laws about lighthouses, or any of the other stuff it didn't affect.
    The current proposed change is carefully worded but pretty plain, to set up an indigenous voice to advise parliament. If the referendum is passed  they are limited by the constitution to doing just that, what people have voted on.
    The constitution only protects freehold title indirectly, by mentioning in article 51 (I think, it's been a while) that the commonwealth can only compulsorily acquire title if they offer just compensation. The real protection comes from English common law.
    The idea that native title could affect freehold was never refuted, it was contained it the High court decision in Mabo vs Qld #2 1993. Before that native title wasn't even a concept, the court decision that recognised it existed said that it existed only for crown land. There were some differing opinions about if it affected commonwealth leased land, but absolutely no thought that it applied to freehold land. The commonwealth then had to put the concept of native title into legislation, which they did the following year, again without letting it affect freehold title.
    So there is absolutely no way that setting up an indigenous voice to advise parliament threatens freehold title. The Solicitor Generals legal opinion on this is freely available online.
    Now we all know that politicians can do dumbarse things even without listening to any advice, but if they want your freehold land the have to offer just compensation, the constitution tells them so. If they want to change that, they would have to hold a referendum to amend article 51, and be open about that in the vote for the amendment. How well do you think that would go?
    Sorry to make it so long, sometimes it takes a while to go through stuff simply.


    "Now we all know that politicians can do dumbarse things even without listening to any advice, but if they want your freehold land the have to offer just compensation, the constitution tells them so."

    The government do not have to take ownership of land to take control of it.
    Look at the Indigenous Cultural Heritage legislation that the WA govt introduced at the beginning of July. It was repealed a bit more than a month later because of the outcry of landowners.
    It was obviously going to affect the 'Yes' vote, so they pulled the plug on it.
    A 'Yes' vote, and the ensuing advice to parliament would see a lot more of this type of legislation.
  • Jay-Dee
    Jay-Dee
    2 years ago
    I think Albanese and co are trying to get this through on a swiftie. They know that almost everyone would want Aboriginals to have constitutional recognition but most likely don’t want a voice. At least not one that has been handled the way that this has.

    By only having one question they’re relying on the hope that Australians will vote yes for it out of guilt/conscience/fear of feeling racist and then sneak whatever else they’re trying for (treaty etc) through with it as well under the radar. Either that or Albanese is even more stupid than I give him credit for and he thinks Australians are just as stupid.

    I hope this gets smashed with an overwhelming majority for NO to teach them a lesson but in reality it will likely get through on a small yes majority for the exact reason that I just mentioned. People want to see Aboriginals recognised and don't want to be thought of as racists. I will be voting NO in bold text and capital letters and that’s a shame as I’d really like to see Aboriginals formally recognised as the first Australians and they rightfully should be.

    But I don’t want even more bureaucracy, money wasted with no benefit to the people who most need it and the potential to interfere with any government decisions whether they affect Aboriginals or not. Especially when the money pits that we already have in place can’t seem to fix many, if any of the problems especially in the remote locations. Surely there are enough Aboriginals in parliament now and representatives for various areas that can get heard by the government without yet another committee that requires a change to the constitution.

    I saw an interview with Albanese last night where he thinks the day after a yes vote things will be magically better and united. The idiot can't see how this is already divisive and it will only be worse no matter whether the outcome is yes or no as the racist card can and will be played by either group.
  • Soapbox2627
    Soapbox2627
    2 years ago
    I read the booklet tonight and went back again as I was concidering some differant senarios and kept coming back to the same thing, I can not vote for this, there is no "ONE" in equality with this proposal.
    straight up the, "recognition" they were the first nation people, when was that ever disputed?
    65000 years of history, how does this number even get concidered, the Egyptions, Greeks, Chinese, Roman, Incans, Sumarians and on rarely can go back 6000 years,
    Ensure they have improvement in Life expectancy, infant mortality and health, Education and Employment
    are these not the same for all people?

    I just cant be bothered typing no more, I am getting riled up, you guys can read it yourself

    100% for equality it will be a HUGE NO from me
  • paulybronco
    paulybronco
    2 years ago
    Perhaps a Pauline satire may help....


  • bloodog
    bloodog
    2 years ago
    October 14  
  • paulybronco
    paulybronco
    2 years ago
    372011039_10229693849345785_534666986100471853_n.jpg
  • 408
    408
    2 years ago
    Bess Price.png
  • Grease Monkey
    Grease Monkey
    2 years ago
    I would Hoody but I can't seem to find that bit anywhere 🤷
  • obisteve
    obisteve
    2 years ago
    Has some bastard ripped out page 6 of your booklets?
    OK, here is the proposed change to the Constitution, in its entirety, without amendment, exactly what you asked for.

    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:
     (i)  there shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice;
    (ii)  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;
     (iii)  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.

    Also, there would be a change to the Constitution by adding this to the Table of Contents in the Constitution, after the reference to 'Chapter VIII Alteration of the Constitution':

    Chapter IX  Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples.

    That's the complete change that's proposed for the Constitution, the wordings been set since June.



  • evo94
    evo94
    2 years ago
    "(iii)  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." .....yeaaah nup! clear as mud...
  • Grease Monkey
    Grease Monkey
    2 years ago
    Yep I read page six as well, that clause you quoted there evo94 might as well say "vote yes and we'll screw you later at our discretion".
    Done with this topic, bring on the vote.
  • obisteve
    obisteve
    2 years ago
    Quoting evo94 on 09 Sep 2023 09:55 PM

    "(iii)  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." .....yeaaah nup! clear as mud...

    OK, so let's look at it. This is actually a good part and means that Parliament is what makes laws about the proposed Voice, and so controls its make-up, function and powers, even after its up and running. Parliament has to follow the Constitution as always, but this helps make sure that the Voice remains an advisory body only, and cannot be above Parliament.
    This stuff is pretty easy to find out about. The Solicitor General, the country's top legal source, the Law Council of Australia, the Attorney General's department, the Australian Parliament all have a lot of factual stuff about it on their websites, just a Duck Duck Go search away.
    And Mark, I agree that we should keep emotions out it when thinking about this and discussing it, but remember that fear is an emotion too.

  • 408
    408
    2 years ago
    Quoting evo94 on 09 Sep 2023 09:55 PM

    "(iii)  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." .....yeaaah nup! clear as mud...

    Quoting obisteve on 10 Sep 2023 12:41 PM

    OK, so let's look at it. This is actually a good part and means that Parliament is what makes laws about the proposed Voice, and so controls its make-up, function and powers, even after its up and running. Parliament has to follow the Constitution as always, but this helps make sure that the Voice remains an advisory body only, and cannot be above Parliament.

    This stuff is pretty easy to find out about. The Solicitor General, the country's top legal source, the Law Council of Australia, the Attorney General's department, the Australian Parliament all have a lot of factual stuff about it on their websites, just a Duck Duck Go search away.
    And Mark, I agree that we should keep emotions out it when thinking about this and discussing it, but remember that fear is an emotion too.


    Here you go, this may make it a bit easier to understand

    " (iii)  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 "

    On election night, the Prime Minister made it clear that he would implement the Uluru Statement from the Heart, in full.

Topics
5/8