Our NRL Club and The Voice

[Andrew Walker]

Everyone, back to the topic please.

A very timely reminder count

[bondi.boy]

Imagine giving power (through treaties etc) to some peeps who HATE our colonization and so called invasion. Almost equivalent to prisoners given power to shape our society....or the lunatics to run the asylum.

Dark dark days ahead if this divisive shit get's up...say goodbye to Australia day, the flag and to massive chinks of yo money if u have any left.

Indeed.

"California's reparations task force has approved recommendations which could give black residents $1.2m each as compensation for slavery and discrimination.".
"could cost $800billion, more than twice California's $300billion annual budget."

[ism22]

Sport is a microcosm of society and mirrors life so way too late to say sport and politics shouldn't mix - First time it could be considered it did (sport and politics mixing) would have been the Berlin Olympics in 1936

We have been through the same sex marriage debate and there was no catastrophic sodom and gomorrah event when the yes vote was successful.

If it is a yes vote for an indigenous voice to parliament it will be the same.

It's purely an advisory body and not one that will override the role of Governments who are the only ones that can make laws ( Legislation) under the Constitutions that exist at various levels of Government ( Federal / State and Territory).

A Voice to Parliament won’t be a third chamber of Parliament. It will be an advisory body that will work with the government of the day on laws and policies directly or indirectly affecting Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.

There is no hidden agenda involved , just a common sense approach in hopefully bettering the lives and well being of Aboriginal and Torres Straight Islander folk not just in the Cities but in rural and remote areas of Australia.

Good to see the Progressive Sydney Roosters Club behind this as they were with same sex marriage and like Coach Robinson I too loathe racism and discrimination of any and all types

It's called progress not only as humans but as a society

I am voting YES the same I did for same sex marriage.

Agreed mate.

Ironic that our 'leftie' [cough - right-wing fascist] friend is absent in these discussions and is not saying 'I wish Russia and China could do something similar.

A country Practice: 'the ironicfulness is terrific!'

[Dr. Voodoo Man]

Agreed mate.

Ironic that our 'leftie' [cough - right-wing fascist] friend is absent in these discussions and is not saying 'I wish Russia and China could do something similar.

A country Practice: 'the ironicfulness is terrific!'

Yes those indigenous Russians are very troublesome. Dickhead.

[A Country Member]

Please put me back on block. That’d be terrific

[mightyrooster]

Please put me back on block. That’d be terrific

Are you trying to say you’d be better off being thought of as a Paddo alt?

[ism22]

Don't worry Paddo, you've been blocked. Occasionally people quote your alt's stupid attempts at being a witty sidekick so I can't help that (and doesn't bother me TBH).

While you may think that I'm reading your posts and responding to them, I've simply read enough of your cr@ppy propaganda (and that of other uneducated, predictable wumaos like you) to be able to jump in at any moment with a witty comment that'll disprove whatever tripe you're on about.

[A Country Member]

Stay off the shrooms bud. You’ve lost it, well and truly.

[A Country Member]

Now, to get this serious thread back on course an interview with Thomas Mayo and Kerry O’Brien discussing their recently published handbook answering the pertinent questions regarding the upcoming referendum on the Indigenous Voice to parliament.

[Jacks Fur Coat]

It's a worry that this is going to a referendum where people may not understand the implications, or worse still, feel obliged to vote 'Yes' lest they be deemed racist.

Ironically the opposite would be true. Such a constitutional amendment sadly would have the direct effect of dividing our country by race. Apartheid lines. New Zealand have already gone down that path. We dont need that sort of division here.

Enormous power and influence would be vested in 24 unelected representatives who can 'advise' the government on basically any policy or proposed legislation. And if they dont get their way they can toddle to the High Court at taxpayers expense.

Most importantly Indigenous peoples are already well represented by our elected members and bodies. So are people from all different races and cultures who make up Australia. We don't need another layer to create an imbalance of priorities or power along racial lines, and definitely not enshrined in our constitution.

Will it help one child from being assaulted in Indigenous communities? No.
Does it keep the focus on this issue rather than people struggling with costs of living and energy prices? Yep.

Just my two bobs worth.

[Random Rooster]

Now, to get this serious thread back on course an interview with Thomas Mayo and Kerry O’Brien discussing their recently published handbook answering the pertinent questions regarding the upcoming referendum on the Indigenous Voice to parliament.

That's the handbook for the "Yes" vote.....is there a handbook for the "No" vote?

I can't figure out what's fact or fiction.....puts me in the undecided bracket along with many others i suspect

[Jacks Fur Coat]

That's the handbook for the "Yes" vote.....is there a handbook for the "No" vote?

I can't figure out what's fact or fiction.....puts me in the undecided bracket along with many others i suspect

I gave you a decent start on that above Randy. Also found an interesting article on the legal ramifications, written by a lawyer. Will try post...Ism22 will love it I'm sure.

[Jacks Fur Coat]

From the Spectator


Many Australian legal groups such as the NSW Bar Association and possibly the Victorian Bar Association, as well as most state Law Societies, are endorsing the ‘Yes’ vote in the proposed referendum to introduce an Indigenous Voice to Parliament. Others are choosing to remain silent. None, however, are endorsing a ‘No’ vote. The major issue I have is how they come to these conclusions.

Lawyers are trained partly at Law School, but significantly in practice, not to rush into advising clients without the facts and the relevant law being known with a high degree of clarity. Essentially, all we know about the proposed Voice is that a small committee known as the ‘working group’ are proposing something with very vague wording to be inserted into the Constitution. The Albanese government wants to accordingly amend the most significant law in the country, the Constitution Act 1900, while promising to fill in the details later after a Referendum has been completed.

If a lawyer in private practice was confronted with such scant details, and advised the client to proceed in court and it then loses the case in court, that lawyer should be very concerned about being sued by the beleaguered client.

If the ‘Yes’ vote is successful, the Constitution will include a body of unelected people chosen by race, with influence over the policy and legal framework of the nation. The Working Group has openly, either directly or indirectly, accused non-Indigenous Australians of stealing the land and should therefore pay reparations.

The Voice is apparently to be made up of 24 people. They are to have some direct access in an advisory capacity to all branches of government. The Executive, which is the Ministers of Cabinet, their departments and agencies. The Legislature, which is both Upper andLower houses of Parliament, and the Judiciary, which are the courts, in particular the High Court of Australia. To control these three branches of government is to control the legislature of the Nation.

Logic suggests, these 24 people will be brought together as one legal entity, presumably an incorporated structure like a company or an unincorporated structure, like a club or some other entity. This body will then formulate one Voice through a process of rules governed by its own constitution. A body within the body such as a board of directors will oversee the Voice. Australians, as yet know nothing about how this mechanism will operate.

The Voice will instruct its own lawyers. It will have its own solicitors on retainer who will instruct a panel of counsel and senior counsel on behalf of the Voice, all of which will also be on retainer.

These lawyers will have one duty and that is to properly conduct their work in the interests of their client and their client is the Voice. Not the Australian government, not the Australian people, but the Voice.

The Voice is to exist, ostensibly, to advise the government on matters relating to Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islander people. The federal government, pursuant to the Constitution is authorised to make laws affecting all Australians. Since Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islander people are Australians, then the Voice can advise the government in relation to all laws.

If the government ignores the Voice, then the Voice may have a direct pathway to the High Court. The High Court has mostly appellate jurisdiction however it can be the first port of call in matters of, among other things Constitutional interpretation, treaties, or an injunction sought against an officer of the Commonwealth such as the Prime Minister, or any other high-ranking government officer. This is made clear in sections 75 and 76 of the Constitution.

A direct pathway to the High Court by the Voice is of extra note when one considers how the majority of judges of the High Court decided the Love and Thoms cases.

The lawyers instructed by the Voice will be very competent, well-paid, and highly motivated to accommodate their clients. They will be across all these issues. They will and should have no hesitation bringing proceedings against the Commonwealth if it assists their client.

Funding of any court proceedings brought by the Voice will be provided by the government, or more accurately, the taxpayer.

Even if the Voice loses any Court challenge, a costs order will be tokenistic because the taxpayer is funding both sides. The Voice, therefore, will be immune from liability.

Since the Albanese government has given such little information about the Voice most of the above is hypothetical, but under the current legal framework nothing presented here is a legal impossibility, so it is therefore possible.

That such little detail about the workings of the Voice, after implementation and the possible dire ramifications is the reason lawyers in general should advise people to Vote ‘No’ from a legal position.

Lawyers are also human beings. They can always have a conscience vote and say, ‘To the devil with the law, I think an Indigenous race-based body should be in the Constitution no matter what the legal ramifications might be.’ There is nothing wrong with that as it is an individual’s choice.

That is not the case with legal bodies. Their utterances are not individual. They, as legal groups, seek to give legal validity to concepts so lacking in detail that they have no legal validity.

The fact is the Albanese government is seeking to put an enormous arsenal of legal weaponry in the hands of a small group of people, some of whom, have not hidden their contempt for their fellow Australians.

Most Australians of all cultural backgrounds, I believe, are overwhelmingly well-intentioned and good-natured.

These sublime traits inherent in all free-spirited Australians are what bind Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians. These qualities are what will drive all Australians to meet all challenges in the future as a Nation, not the nebulous legal minefield proposed by the Albanese government.

[zac]

i'm voting yes. i don't believe i have any aboriginal heritage but this is a sensible, moderate proposal and i want to live in a country that acts sensibly. the crux of the referendum is that it will acknowledge that the ancestors of some living australians lived in australia for tens of thousands of years. it's about constitutional recognition of that fact. whether you tacked on the voice is neither here or there for me but the voice will have no more power than a senate committee, and might do some good.

if the voice fails the issue won't go away and that might involve world indigenous groups taking australia to u.n. councils. who knows, it might involve civil unrest in australia. best to vote yes for a sensible, moderate proposal.

[Andrew Walker]

i'm voting yes. i don't believe i have any aboriginal heritage but this is a sensible, moderate proposal and i want to live in a country that acts sensibly. the crux of the referendum is that it will acknowledge that the ancestors of some living australians lived in australia for tens of thousands of years. it's about constitutional recognition of that fact. whether you tacked on the voice is neither here or there for me but the voice will have no more power than a senate committee, and might do some good.

if the voice fails the issue won't go away and that might involve world indigenous groups taking australia to u.n. councils. who knows, it might involve civil unrest in australia. best to vote yes for a sensible, moderate proposal.

Your last paragraph is fear mongering at its worst