Referendum 2023

[WestsEffTheRest]

When children and middle aged white guilt woke limp wrists are voting 'yes' you know the correct vote is 'no'

Was waiting for you to turn up & turn what’s been a respectful thread to shit

 

[Winston Churchill]

Was waiting for you to turn up & turn what’s been a respectful thread to shit

And right on cue, one shows up. It's like catnip.

 

[boonboon]

I think its hilarious how many people on here think that Tigers members and fans should be able to have more of a say in how the club is run but somehow don't think people getting a say in how their lives are run by the government is somehow crazy. If you want to know why to vote Yes in a Wests Tigers forum then the anwser is the current Wests Tigers board and their actions. If you would sign a petition for change on the board then vote Yes

 

[twentyforty]

I really recommend the Australian Wars series on SBS On-demand. It covers very well settlers coming after the initial conflict, arrive in a war zone they were not aware of. They were sold a different story.

Much of their deaths have not been recognised in history because the colonial version doesn't want the conflict given attention. The Australian Wars series covers that. It's brutal, especially the 70,000 Aboriginal people hunted and killed by the Tribal Police in Queensland.

70,000 In Qld alone? That’s 20% of the estimated population at the time. I didn’t realise the losses were that high? 😞
I wish there were a way for all Australians to focus on bringing us together, rather than driving a wedge. Aboriginal people, and particularly some activists, could focus more on how Europeans have improved their lively hood and living standard. While the rest of the population could do well to keep their cool.
we don’t want to see another civil war like we saw in the 1930s.

 

[twentyforty]

I think its hilarious how many people on here think that Tigers members and fans should be able to have more of a say in how the club is run but somehow don't think people getting a say in how their lives are run by the government is somehow crazy. If you want to know why to vote Yes in a Wests Tigers forum then the anwser is the current Wests Tigers board and their actions. If you would sign a petition for change on the board then vote Yes

I get the analogy. We all want more say in the choices we make, especially those with special needs. Most of us would rather the government take less money from us and put a reasonable cap on the size of the public service, but can we achieve that by antiestablishmentarianism?

 

[tiger_one]

 

[Winston Churchill]

I think its hilarious how many people on here think that Tigers members and fans should be able to have more of a say in how the club is run but somehow don't think people getting a say in how their lives are run by the government is somehow crazy. If you want to know why to vote Yes in a Wests Tigers forum then the anwser is the current Wests Tigers board and their actions. If you would sign a petition for change on the board then vote Yes

Your analogy is hilarious. What's up with the left now being super cool about segregation? I always thought all Australian citizens have the right to vote for representatives to represent them or if they have the gumption, can run for office themselves. Can we all have special interest parties to represent our exact identity or just those who believe in the bigotry of low expectations?

 

[Fallen Angel]

When children and middle aged white guilt woke limp wrists are voting 'yes' you know the correct vote is 'no'

Always need the boomer buzzword to ram home the point.

 

[Winston Churchill]

Always need the boomer buzzword to ram home the point.

Which was more accurate - woke, limp wrists, white guilt or all of the above? We all deep down know the answer. Thanks for playing.

 

[watersider]

First off......congratulations to you for your balanced and informed response. its a pleasure to actually discuss on afactual basis.

The 'dangers' I foresee is that the proposal is completely open ended with regards to the power of the goverment of the day and as such poses the danger that the government of the day could neuter the Voice or conversely give it (IMO) too much power as the right to make legislation for indigenous people, the power to be involved on forming legislation etc. You and I dont know what future governments might do with it.

I would be more inclined to vote for it if the powers of the Voice were established. The body is going to be enshrined in the Constitution, then the powers of that body should be as well.



The constitution is not meant to be a "law" it is meant to be the core basis of values and principles that formthe basis of our nation and on which basis all laws are made (judicial and legislative). IMO if something isnt intrinsic, defined and timeless enough that it doesnt stand without constant change by the Govt, then it has no place in the Constitution and can and should be legislated by the Govt.


If parliamentary power is very important for the Voice, then it has no place in the Constitution and should be legislated instead.. That is not what the Constitution is for.

Hiya Misty, I'm no constitutional expert, and I've never (and will never) read it. However, I just saw an article today in the Herald by Judge James Spigelman on your point. He starts with the example of section 101 of the constitution which states 'there shall be an Interstate Commission', with the commision having 'such powers...as the parliament deems necessary...relating to trade and commerce'. He points out this is language and direction very similar to the voice suggestion. Now that's total second hand recount on my behalf, so I make no suggestion of authority on that matter, but it seems, as far as I understand, it is the domain of the constitution to have such directions as proposed by this referendum.

In thinking about the issue, not being a legal man myself (thank goodness), my consideration is to whether or not I think a representative Indigenous voice to parliament to 'advise' government on Indigenous issues is a good idea. I think it is a very good idea. I think it will help inform government understanding of Indigenous issues and will, as a consequence, lead to better outcomes for Indigenous people. This I think will contribute to a more inclusive (rather than divisive) country. But that's my view on it.

Perhaps start there in your contemplation of the issues and if you don't agree with that you need no further consideration of the issue and can vote no. If you do think there's merit in that idea, but are concerned about the many legal and constitutional implications, then you should have a look into those matters. From my reading on the matter the proposal is legally sound and the parliament control over the voice is a good thing, but as I said at the beginning, I'm no authority on the matter.

 

[Fallen Angel]

Which was more accurate - woke, limp wrists, white guilt or all of the above? We all deep down know the answer. Thanks for playing.

Ok boomer

 

[Winston Churchill]

Hiya Misty, I'm no constitutional expert, and I've never (and will never) read it. However, I just saw an article today in the Herald by Judge James Spigelman on your point. He starts with the example of section 101 of the constitution which states 'there shall be an Interstate Commission', with the commision having 'such powers...as the parliament deems necessary...relating to trade and commerce'. He points out this is language and direction very similar to the voice suggestion. Now that's total second hand recount on my behalf, so I make no suggestion of authority on that matter, but it seems, as far as I understand, it is the domain of the constitution to have such directions as proposed by this referendum.

In thinking about the issue, not being a legal man myself (thank goodness), my consideration is to whether or not I think a representative Indigenous voice to parliament to 'advise' government on Indigenous issues is a good idea. I think it is a very good idea. I think it will help inform government understanding of Indigenous issues and will, as a consequence, lead to better outcomes for Indigenous people. This I think will contribute to a more inclusive (rather than divisive) country. But that's my view on it.

Perhaps start there in your contemplation of the issues and if you don't agree with that you need no further consideration of the issue and can vote no. If you do think there's merit in that idea, but are concerned about the many legal and constitutional implications, then you should have a look into those matters. From my reading on the matter the proposal is legally sound and the parliament control over the voice is a good thing, but as I said at the beginning, I'm no authority on the matter.

Very good post watersider

 

[Tucker]

Your analogy is hilarious. What's up with the left now being super cool about segregation? I always thought all Australian citizens have the right to vote for representatives to represent them or if they have the gumption, can run for office themselves. Can we all have special interest parties to represent our exact identity or just those who believe in the bigotry of low expectations?

30% of our population are immigrants.
That vastly dwarves the amount of Indigenous.
It makes more sense that they have a representative voice providing Governmental support to assimilate, including learning English and securing work.

 

[Winston Churchill]

Ok boomer

Just another quality post weve come to expect from a certain persons sock account. I dig the irony of spitting the dummy over buzzwords and then posting ageist comments like 'boomer' like its meant to hurt an anonymous avatar on the weststigers forum.

 

[Winston Churchill]

30% of our population are immigrants.
That vastly dwarves the amount of Indigenous.
It makes more sense that they have a representative voice providing Governmental support to assimilate, including learning English and securing work.

Agree and it makes 100% sense in reality but politicians and the white knight types cant virtue signal over that. So that isn't allowed to make sense.

 

[Fallen Angel]

Just another quality post weve come to expect from a certain persons sock account. I dig the irony of spitting the dummy over buzzwords and then posting ageist comments like 'boomer' like its meant to hurt an anonymous avatar on the weststigers forum.

Who would that certain poster be?
Not projecting are you sniffer?

 

[Tucker]

Who would that certain poster be?
Not projecting are you sniffer?

Back on topic.
Have you anything to contribute?

 

[Winston Churchill]

Who would that certain poster be?
Not projecting are you sniffer?

Can we stay on topic or is that just too Alien for you?

 

[Fallen Angel]

Back on topic.
Have you anything to contribute?

I have no preference one way or another

 

[Winston Churchill]

On point -

​

‘Had a shocker’: Big thing Yes campaign got wrong​

Amid the noise of both the Yes and No Voice to Parliament campaigns, the Yes crowd has got something terribly wrong.

Joe Hildebrand

September 9, 2023 - 9:03AM

OPINION

It seems impossible to talk about anything but the Voice in the current political climate, which is a shame because perhaps the biggest threat to the Voice is people constantly talking about it.

And now here I go again, so apologies for that. However it will not be what you expect to hear.

Amid all the noise and obfuscation and claim and counterclaim from both sides of this debate something has been conspicuously absent, and that is the truth.

There is a lot of talk about truth-telling from the Yes side of the campaign – the side I am on – but it is high time we told the truth about ourselves.

And the truth is that we have had a shocker. We’ve gone from a position where almost two-thirds of Australians supported constitutional recognition through an Indigenous Voice to Parliament to a point where even some leading campaigners are bracing for defeat.

This would be terribly sad for ourselves and our country but should it eventuate it would be a catastrophe of our own making.

But first we should pause and thank God for small mercies: The Voice is not yet a lost cause. It can be saved if those of us who champion it do some truth-telling of our own.

The first thing to admit is that the optics haven’t been great.

The Voice exists only as a proposed amendment to the constitution. It is an incredibly modest and elegant form of words that grants the Parliament of Australia absolute authority over it and thus guarantees the People of Australia the same.

Here it is in full and every Australian should know it:

“In recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia:

• there shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice;

• 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;

• 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.”

As is explicitly clear to any layman, and as innumerable legal experts – including the last High Court Chief Justice – have clearly stated, the only power in this amendment resides in the Parliament. All the Voice can do is “make representations” – i.e. say what it thinks.

But it is also true that a bunch of the usual excitable activist types, including some associated with the Yes campaign, have been busted on social media bragging about how this is just step one in a push to accumulate further power and rights for Indigenous peoples.

This is depressingly unhelpful and also utterly wrong. Whether you agree with their lofty ambitions or not, there is only one rational response: How?

There is literally no facility, no capacity for the amendment to do that. All the Voice can do – appropriately enough – is speak.

And if it tried to extend beyond its remit of merely providing advice whatever parliament or government the people voted in at the next election could turn the Voice inside out at the stroke of a pen.

And so if anything the Voice is incentivised to be as in keeping with community standards and expectations as possible because if its advice is seen as reckless or opportunistic it would encourage parliament to dissolve and reconstitute it.

This power is written there plain as day in the final line of the amendment: The Parliament has total control over the Voice’s “composition, functions, powers and procedures” – in other words, who is on it, what it is able to do and how it is able to do it.

And so whatever some douchebag says on social media doesn’t matter. Only what the amendment says matters — and the amendment is constrained, conservative and clear.

Voice campaigners must also be honest about the other millstone hanging around the neck of the campaign, and that is the perception that this is another top-down elitist push of woke values on ordinary working people who have the real world to worry about.

This is completely understandable given the innumerable nauseating virtue-signalling crusades that are constantly drummed up by overprivileged hectoring types.

The problem is that the Voice is not one of those things. Unlike the empty feel-good rhetoric of other causes this is something that has the potential to make a real material difference for some of the most underprivileged people on the planet.

And so while the cry may sound familiar, this time when the boy is crying wolf the wolf is real.

Indeed, it is in many ways ironic that many of the faces of the Voice are among the most successful Indigenous people in our country. That should be welcomed but it does not make them typical, nor are they the people for whom the Voice is intended.

The harder truth is that Indigenous people die almost a decade sooner than the rest of us and that in many remote communities the levels of disease, violence and unemployment would be simply unrecognisable as Australia to most of us.

These are the people who need a voice. These are the people we should be listening to. And it is for these people that the Voice to Parliament was conceived.

The bleatings of the chattering classes might be what most people hear and that is exactly the problem the Voice is trying to fix. It would be too cruel if those who were voiceless were denied that chance just because others didn’t know when to shut up.