Referendum 2023

Status
Not open for further replies.
Odessa said:
This is about land rights and if the yes wins there is over 3000 claims in Sydney at the moment so if you worked all your life paid off the mortgage good luck renting the land underneath the house you own

There is already 11 voice's to parliament the government can legislate the voice to parliament but they don't want to they want to change the constitution that protects you from problems like this

And good luck with the Uluru statement
Click to expand...
40,000 in NSW alone. If you don't know the full details, and Albo can't or won't say, then vote no.
 
They introduced the same thing in Finland. The indigenous people are consulted by parliament. Doesn’t mean the Suomi always get their way. But being listened to means more self esteem for them, a degree of reconciliation and a sense of belonging to the national project. That’s what we’re voting on here in Australia.

For those who are worried, Changing 1993 native title act would require a vote by parliament and senate. The voice does not and can not make or change law. No major party is proposing to change the native title act.
 
watersider said:
I'm voting yes because I like the idea of a representative body for indigenous people.
Click to expand...

What was ATSIC? Why do we need to change the Constitution to do so?
watersider said:
I see it as quite a small gesture given we've never quite reconciled taking land, brutal policy and terrible policy outcomes and it is natural and fair in my mind that indigenous people have a representative voice. I don't expect it to fix all problems, and expect that the voice will have its own complications, like all government and representative bodies, but I see it as good progress and I'm disappointed that the campaign is going badly.
Click to expand...
Why do we need to change the Constitution to do those things?
 
die hard said:
For those who are worried, Changing 1993 native title act would require a vote by parliament and senate. The voice does not and can not make or change law.
Click to expand...

Can you point me to the section of the question in the referendum or the proposed Constitution amendment that says that?

The referendum would make The Voice, law, subject to change over time and you and I dont know what the proposed change to the law is. One of the Architects of The Voice, Thomas Mayo has specifically said that the Voice will lead to reparations and the requirement for non indigenous people to "Pay the Rent". is he wrong?


www.dailymail.co.uk

Voice to Parliament architect addresses plan to 'pay the rent'

One of the architects of the Voice to Parliament has spoken about the proposal being the 'first step' towards reparations in unearthed video footage.
www.dailymail.co.uk www.dailymail.co.uk

What exactly will the proposed Constitutional amendment say?

die hard said:
No major party is proposing to change the native title act.
Click to expand...

you d understand that if something is written into the Constitution, neither party has to change any act?
 
My default position is always that whatever the Government wants, it is generally bad for the people. It is after all, a corporation, operating under the Uniform Commercial Code, and cares little or not at all for those they purport to work for - us.
Secondly, as it stands, the Riginals of this land are still sovereign. When Cook planted the flag and declared it 'for King and Country', (under terra nullius), he committed an illegal act, as the land was already inhabited. That is why, if one looks at the definition of 'Australia' it is described as the land mass of Norfolk Island, (No folk), and the Cocos Islands.
Should the Referendum go ahead (and there is some doubt following a challenge in the High Court re the 'constitutionality' of it, and should the 'yes' vote win, the 'Riginals will then be considered as having ceded their Sovereignty. And that folks, is exactly what Gov Corp wants - access to the land, unfettered by pesky sovereign owners.
So its a definite no from me.
 
Tucker said:
Those are excuses only.
Education opportunities exist currently with subsidies. There are quotas on work sites. Crime is related to social conditions but it’s not like they are the only collection of individuals experiencing them
How will the voice change this?
Click to expand...
As I said "not an excuse for any individual" but crime and poorer work and educational outcomes are common for disadvantaged worldwide. A few subsidies does not change this.
How will the voice change this? No idea, I'm asking the same question.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Members online

Total: 1,439 (members: 40, guests: 1,399)
Back
Top