So I guess I will just wait for Indo, to quote his own words, to:
"A- Not reply"...or
"B- Admit you were wrong"... or
" learn from your mistake" for saying "This is possibly the best information i can find on the issue around the question and it's from a very good source "WA law society journal" " and "BTW. Im not opposed to a voice as such, only opposed to things being cemented in the constitution without any real reason other than playing politics."

adam12 wrote:

So I guess I will just wait for Indo, to quote his own words, to:

"A- Not reply"...or

"B- Admit you were wrong"... or

" learn from your mistake" for saying "This is possibly the best information i can find on the issue around the question and it's from a very good source "WA law society journal" " and "BTW. Im not opposed to a voice as such, only opposed to things being cemented in the constitution without any real reason other than playing politics."

Currently working and about to grab lunch, so dont have time to go read your link or get to much into a back and forth

But the guy i linked as you can see is very experienced in this field, so it does seem we have people in the know with differing views, the same goes about many other aspects of the voice and legal aspects and powers potential issues etc

This very fact says a lot, it says very loudly dont take this lightly, its not black or white or so simple as some would like us to beleive.

The onus is on Albo to provide an extremely valid reason for this to be in the constitution instead of just being like other past advisory bodies, and to provide hard evidence that all legal experts can on agree on that the issues they fear will not happen.

People talk about politicians being extreme, changing the constitution in the manner we are talking is an extreme change.

It’s silly to say that altering the Constitution is extreme.
It’s simply an example of democracy in action.
The Constitution was drafted in the 1890s and as such you would expect it to be amended to suit different time and changing social conditions.

Talk of altering the constitution as extreme is outright utter bullshit.

The founding fathers saw it as a living document (to reflect current day society) and put in place the very mechanism (referendums) to allow it to be altered.

It's typical far right reactionary politics to argue against constitutional change when a need arises.

The same argument has played out in the US recently when the Trump stacked Supreme Court overturned the 50 years of living precedent in the Roe v Wade case deferring instead to the original wording (1787) in the US constitution surrounding States and Federal rights.

Utter bullshit from the far right reactionaries

;)

Changing the Constitution is rare in Australia, but not extreme. That's why there is a mechanism for doing so enshrined in it since it's inception.
What is extreme is the direction taken politically by the right in Australia since John Howard. They still call themselves "conservative" but they are fake conservatives, more like far right reactionaries. True conservatives respect the Rule of Law, they obey political norms, procedures and conventions, they respect our long established institutions and take advice from independent legitimate sources not cherry pick flawed contrary opinions in the face of overwhelming legitimate evidence and advice, as Indo did when he scoured the internet to find a Law Journal article written by an academic who lacks basic understanding of an issue. Law Journals are written by academics and students mostly. They don't create precedent, they don't make laws, they are not binding or persuasive in a Court, they are valuable discussion papers but can often be wrong. I myself as a law student had a paper I wrote on the Historic Shipwrecks Act published in a Law Journal and I was the worst student with the worst academic record ever to graduate from the David Derham School of Law at Monash Uni.
The last true conservative LNP leadership in Australia was under Malcolm Fraser, or perhaps John Hewson. John Howard started the slide, throwing away the fundamental convention of Ministerial Responsibility and each leader since continued the trend where we ended up with a PM like Morrison secretly swearing himself into multiple portfolios and trashing everything he came in contact with that made Australia the great democracy it once was. The moderates were purged under Abbott, the branches stacked with religious far right wing bases, the standards were abandoned, the interests of the public supplanted by the interests of lobbyists and policy formulation became non existent in favour of a relentless culture war strategy copied from the far right in the US.
They now are a party and movement dominated by Christo- fascists, grifters and political opportunists bereft of any true 'conservatism' who are willing to lie and create false narratives to hoodwink their way into power.
Getting back to Indo's crap source used to argue the Voice should not be a referendum, it is a good example of how the right seek out a contrary path or opinion, no matter how flawed, to construct a false narrative in the face of overwhelming contrary legitimate opinion they choose to ignore, to create division and undermine, or "play politics" as Indo himself accused enshrining the Voice as, that suits the interests of their donor lobbyists and masters.
They did it with climate change, they did it to justify Robodebt, taking an opinion of a compromised public service lawyer (Pulford) over the Solicitor General, the second highest Law Officer, they did it with The Murray Darling, and I could go on'
Australian voters have woken up to the ruse which is why the mainland is a sea of red.
I would welcome a true conservative movement in Australia, it is an important balance in the political spectrum, and I feel sorry for rusted- ons like Indo who identify as political conservatives because the current incarnation is a fraud on them and all of us.

Very well said adam12 especially your explanation on how the word conservative is misused; along with your recent comments on the sellouts mundine and price

There’s been some really good, well informed counter arguments to Indo. As per usual they’re belittled and ignored.

Great informative post Adam 12

I’m just glad that I’m still teachable, some good posts based on facts .

Thanks Adam12 great posts and others

That made for some good reading today Adam12!

yes great comment adam12.

But just how and why did things came to this for the LNP, and Australian politics more generally?

My assumption has always been that it was due to US influence and even pressure - both political and commercial/corporate. (This is why I'm a little anti-US. It always seemed to me that US influence has on balance been a force driving Australia in the wrong direction on many dimensions.)

https://twitter.com/badiucao/status/1637849876850704384/photo/1

adam12 wrote:

Changing the Constitution is rare in Australia, but not extreme. That's why there is a mechanism for doing so enshrined in it since it's inception.

What is extreme is the direction taken politically by the right in Australia since John Howard. They still call themselves "conservative" but they are fake conservatives, more like far right reactionaries. True conservatives respect the Rule of Law, they obey political norms, procedures and conventions, they respect our long established institutions and take advice from independent legitimate sources not cherry pick flawed contrary opinions in the face of overwhelming legitimate evidence and advice, as Indo did when he scoured the internet to find a Law Journal article written by an academic who lacks basic understanding of an issue. Law Journals are written by academics and students mostly. They don't create precedent, they don't make laws, they are not binding or persuasive in a Court, they are valuable discussion papers but can often be wrong. I myself as a law student had a paper I wrote on the Historic Shipwrecks Act published in a Law Journal and I was the worst student with the worst academic record ever to graduate from the David Derham School of Law at Monash Uni.

The last true conservative LNP leadership in Australia was under Malcolm Fraser, or perhaps John Hewson. John Howard started the slide, throwing away the fundamental convention of Ministerial Responsibility and each leader since continued the trend where we ended up with a PM like Morrison secretly swearing himself into multiple portfolios and trashing everything he came in contact with that made Australia the great democracy it once was. The moderates were purged under Abbott, the branches stacked with religious far right wing bases, the standards were abandoned, the interests of the public supplanted by the interests of lobbyists and policy formulation became non existent in favour of a relentless culture war strategy copied from the far right in the US.

They now are a party and movement dominated by Christo- fascists, grifters and political opportunists bereft of any true 'conservatism' who are willing to lie and create false narratives to hoodwink their way into power.

Getting back to Indo's crap source used to argue the Voice should not be a referendum, it is a good example of how the right seek out a contrary path or opinion, no matter how flawed, to construct a false narrative in the face of overwhelming contrary legitimate opinion they choose to ignore, to create division and undermine, or "play politics" as Indo himself accused enshrining the Voice as, that suits the interests of their donor lobbyists and masters.

They did it with climate change, they did it to justify Robodebt, taking an opinion of a compromised public service lawyer (Pulford) over the Solicitor General, the second highest Law Officer, they did it with The Murray Darling, and I could go on'

Australian voters have woken up to the ruse which is why the mainland is a sea of red.

I would welcome a true conservative movement in Australia, it is an important balance in the political spectrum, and I feel sorry for rusted- ons like Indo who identify as political conservatives because the current incarnation is a fraud on them and all of us.

Way to much bullshit to reply to there

But WTF even if you had some bat shit crazy conspiracy theory views of the LNP not being conservatives and being far right (which must make those Nazis the other day, so far right they are somewhere near Pluto.)

Surely you must have forgotten about Turnball im still completely confused how he ever was in the LNP, he was more to the left than half of Labor is, i mean seriously this guy is basically credited for getting the Australian Guardian off the ground the most left leaning mainstream newspaper in Australia and getting same sex marriage passed, something Labor could have easily did but didn't.

Many conservatives claim the exact opposite that the LNP have drifted to far left, and in some ways its hard to argue with especially when you look at what happened with Covid where we had the biggest social spending government in our history and people were basically given money to not work, not to mention we saw left wing authoritarian style policy that was directly copied from the Chinese communist party approach, and much of the world looked on going WTF other than NZ and Canada who had radical left leaders.

And now in Victoria we have a LNP leader who is willing to throw a women under a bus for wanting to have women's safe spaces free from biological men, because we cant upset grown men who identify as women, but its somehow cool that women of all ages (including children and teens under age) give up their safe spaces and rights of privacy, dignity and freedom, because we live in some fantasy world where we really can change sexes. (follow the science, yeah right)

And id hate to say it, but the differences between LNP and Labor federally really isn't that big anymore, they both have moved towards each other in so many different ways, the differences are more just playing something up or down for voters, you see this around climate change that LNP spent billions on and had all kinds of policy around the issue, but played it way down for some reason, then you have Labor who dont do to much more but play it way up.

Same deal around say fossil fuels etc, both parties happy to have different public narratives set around the issue, but the reality from each party is actually very similar, you see that at state and federal level with Labor QLD supporting Adani and Labor supporting or giving approval to new gas

I guess because in reality same shit really needs to be done.

I mean even state wise there is some weird contradictions, in NSW under LNP you had a scheme to encourage EV take up with a $3,000 rebate and in Victoria, you have a scheme that taxes EVs by KM, i believe only place in the world.

Again we see it with defence and Subs,

To me the gap between the two parties is currently at it smallest, it really started after Labor went to the election where Shorten lost the un-lossable because of quite radical Labor policy especially around money related things, they then did the smart thing and threw away all the radical policies, but in doing so moved towards the LNP

I really dont know which way it goes anymore is LNP Labor lite or Labor, Liberal lite?

Its really only these issues like the voice that provides a big difference, although that said LNP havent said they wont support it.

Anyway knowing you studied law, made me laugh, no wonder you are so detached from the common man and have that elitist look down on others vibe like Guy does.

BTW. Im going to be a man and admit that while my source was a good one that it does seem like he is wrong, which also makes me wrong.

Although that changes little about the fact that NOBODY has come up with any decent reason why the voice should be enshrined in the constitution???

And if anyone doesn't think a race based policy cemented in the constitution that divides us with different voices/powers is extreme, well im speechless, because call me idealistic but i believe all Australians should be treated the same and not have special voices or rights or representation.

PS. Warren Mundine says hi.

Of course its not a racial slur, cause you dont want it to be though, right.

EDIT; actually thinking about it more, a lot of these similarities go much further back, as it was actually labor who started privitsatiuon with selling off of Qantas and Commonwealth bank, and it was also Keating that first implemented indefinite mandatory detention for illegal arrivals., Howard also was first to sign the Kyoto protocol (Krudd ratfied it latter)

Anyway we are going off topic.

soggydog wrote:

There’s been some really good, well informed counter arguments to Indo. As per usual they’re belittled and ignored.

God how ironic, seeing the one question ive asked hasn't been answered, despite there being so many passionate Yes voters.

If you missed it, the question was, why does the voice need to be implemented in the constitution???

And the answer "so it cant be changed/scrapped" isn't a proper answer, as we know all other attempts have failed so 15to 20 years from now for all we know we possibly could be trying to rid it from the constitution, (if possible)

adam12 did provide a link to a story that sought to provide answers to why . Sunday 4:57. adam12. Then posted again by SF.
Answers from 2 judges
Check it out.

adam12 wrote:

Changing the Constitution is rare in Australia, but not extreme. That's why there is a mechanism for doing so enshrined in it since it's inception.

What is extreme is the direction taken politically by the right in Australia since John Howard. They still call themselves "conservative" but they are fake conservatives, more like far right reactionaries. True conservatives respect the Rule of Law, they obey political norms, procedures and conventions, they respect our long established institutions and take advice from independent legitimate sources not cherry pick flawed contrary opinions in the face of overwhelming legitimate evidence and advice, as Indo did when he scoured the internet to find a Law Journal article written by an academic who lacks basic understanding of an issue. Law Journals are written by academics and students mostly. They don't create precedent, they don't make laws, they are not binding or persuasive in a Court, they are valuable discussion papers but can often be wrong. I myself as a law student had a paper I wrote on the Historic Shipwrecks Act published in a Law Journal and I was the worst student with the worst academic record ever to graduate from the David Derham School of Law at Monash Uni.

The last true conservative LNP leadership in Australia was under Malcolm Fraser, or perhaps John Hewson. John Howard started the slide, throwing away the fundamental convention of Ministerial Responsibility and each leader since continued the trend where we ended up with a PM like Morrison secretly swearing himself into multiple portfolios and trashing everything he came in contact with that made Australia the great democracy it once was. The moderates were purged under Abbott, the branches stacked with religious far right wing bases, the standards were abandoned, the interests of the public supplanted by the interests of lobbyists and policy formulation became non existent in favour of a relentless culture war strategy copied from the far right in the US.

They now are a party and movement dominated by Christo- fascists, grifters and political opportunists bereft of any true 'conservatism' who are willing to lie and create false narratives to hoodwink their way into power.

Getting back to Indo's crap source used to argue the Voice should not be a referendum, it is a good example of how the right seek out a contrary path or opinion, no matter how flawed, to construct a false narrative in the face of overwhelming contrary legitimate opinion they choose to ignore, to create division and undermine, or "play politics" as Indo himself accused enshrining the Voice as, that suits the interests of their donor lobbyists and masters.

They did it with climate change, they did it to justify Robodebt, taking an opinion of a compromised public service lawyer (Pulford) over the Solicitor General, the second highest Law Officer, they did it with The Murray Darling, and I could go on'

Australian voters have woken up to the ruse which is why the mainland is a sea of red.

I would welcome a true conservative movement in Australia, it is an important balance in the political spectrum, and I feel sorry for rusted- ons like Indo who identify as political conservatives because the current incarnation is a fraud on them and all of us.

Yep.....

LNP not conservative, but grifting populists that have now been seen for what they are, hence the major decline in votes across Australia.
I may add that it is maybe also due to Murdoch, 9 media etc losing influence and people sourcing their news elsewhere. Lots of crap sources out there, but the bullshit from msm gets called out.
Robodebt alone should cause the LNP to be unelectable for a decade at least, as it demonstrated their total disregard / hate for some Australians, knowingly breaking the law to bully a whole cohort of the community resulting in many deaths.
Bring on ICAC.. ..

The referendum question relates to formal, constitutional recognition of the original inhabitants and the explicit requirement that the government of the day needs to provide the opportunity for representatives to provide advice on government actions that directly impact them. What's the problem? As TBB pointed out, it is not very different to the referendum proposal John Howard brought to the people. Everyone gets their chance to vote, use it as you wish.

Oh yeah, bring on ICAC.

Indo , a short response as I'm buggered, had a big day and need sleep. I agree to a point on Labor being Liberal lite, there is still a big difference, but you'd be surprised to know I could probably be as critical of them in some areas so don't get me started. Thank you for acknowledging your source was lacking. There are many real and very good reasons why the Voice needs to be enshrined, you mentioned one yourself in your post. Don't have time now but will try to convince you sometime in the future if you wish. As for my qualifications making me elitist well I laughed out loud at that, if you met me or spoke to my family or mates you'd quickly realise how far off you are with that observation. I only did 12 months professional practice at Springvale Legal Service, Legal Aid, as I had worked out late in my studies that a career in law was not for me. I made my career in hospitality and entertainment management, did pretty well, 'retired' at 38/9, and spent the rest of my life doing various things enabling me to surf as much as possible. I'm in my early 60's now and run a painting business that keeps me occupied on days there's no waves. Not particularly elitist, don't even own a suit these days!
Anyway, bed time for me.

Painting career? i had the wrong idea of my guessing who adam 12 is. I thought myabe tattoo artist in WA. Used to be friends, then blocked and unfriended, then talked it out made up with but cant figure out how to unblock on facebook after realizing we were both being dickheads and going thru shit at the time.

Haha that fooks up Indo’s railing against the “man”. It’s tradie v tradie. Let’s rumble.

Geez that’s brought back some memories, you really do have to hand it to @info, belligerently opposed to any progress or change for Aboriginals where they are seen to be treated differently from white society. The stamina of our correspondent!! Post after post through Abbott’s attack on isolated communities, Bolt’s 18c court case and “we all have a right to be bigots debate”, Adam Goodes calling out racist remarks, the infamous milk in coffee remarks and now his opposition to the Uluru Statement and the Voice with his favourite sold outs Price and Mundine. Have I left any out? Shirley not!

blackers wrote:

The referendum question relates to formal, constitutional recognition of the original inhabitants and the explicit requirement that the government of the day needs to provide the opportunity for representatives to provide advice on government actions that directly impact them. What's the problem? As TBB pointed out, it is not very different to the referendum proposal John Howard brought to the people. Everyone gets their chance to vote, use it as you wish.

The voice is about co-governance, not recognition. Recognition would be to amend the preamble to acknowledge indigenous history. Inserting a race based body and creating 2 classes of citizens is another thing entirely.

groundswell wrote:

Painting career? i had the wrong idea of my guessing who adam 12 is. I thought myabe tattoo artist in WA. Used to be friends, then blocked and unfriended, then talked it out made up with but cant figure out how to unblock on facebook after realizing we were both being dickheads and going thru shit at the time.

Ha,ha Groundy. Not really a career, just something I fell into late in life. My older brother is a master painter and I started going to work with him just to hang out with him because he's such a funny bastard and we have a good laugh, didn't really expect to end up doing it but before I knew it I was booked for months and had my own business. I don't work too hard, plenty of days off when there's waves and plenty of trips away. Good 'play money' though. As for me being a WA tattooist, pretty funny, I'm a clean skin. Grew up around a lot of heavily tattooed guys back when it was only bikies, wharfies and legitimate tough guys that had them. My mother always said that even though I thought I owned my body, it was actually hers, she made it, so if I ever came home with a tatt it was coming off, and I could choose between a cheese grater or a belt sander! She was serious!

waveman wrote:

blackers wrote:

The referendum question relates to formal, constitutional recognition of the original inhabitants and the explicit requirement that the government of the day needs to provide the opportunity for representatives to provide advice on government actions that directly impact them. What's the problem? As TBB pointed out, it is not very different to the referendum proposal John Howard brought to the people. Everyone gets their chance to vote, use it as you wish.

The voice is about co-governance, not recognition. Recognition would be to amend the preamble to acknowledge indigenous history. Inserting a race based body and creating 2 classes of citizens is another thing entirely.

No, it is not. Read the words. This thread is about the "necessity of reparation of historic injustices", you either believe that there is a need for that or you don't. If you do, then recognition and the ability to have a voice is part of that process.
You can vote no, go for it. No need for the hysteria.

blackers wrote:

waveman wrote:

blackers wrote:

The referendum question relates to formal, constitutional recognition of the original inhabitants and the explicit requirement that the government of the day needs to provide the opportunity for representatives to provide advice on government actions that directly impact them. What's the problem? As TBB pointed out, it is not very different to the referendum proposal John Howard brought to the people. Everyone gets their chance to vote, use it as you wish.

The voice is about co-governance, not recognition. Recognition would be to amend the preamble to acknowledge indigenous history. Inserting a race based body and creating 2 classes of citizens is another thing entirely.

No, it is not. Read the words. This thread is about the "necessity of reparation of historic injustices", you either believe that there is a need for that or you don't. If you do, then recognition and the ability to have a voice is part of that process.

You can vote no, go for it. No need for the hysteria.

You’re confusing hysteria with facts. Most concerning is the number of people who cannot comprehend the implications of the proposed amendments.

waveman wrote:

blackers wrote:

waveman wrote:

blackers wrote:

The referendum question relates to formal, constitutional recognition of the original inhabitants and the explicit requirement that the government of the day needs to provide the opportunity for representatives to provide advice on government actions that directly impact them. What's the problem? As TBB pointed out, it is not very different to the referendum proposal John Howard brought to the people. Everyone gets their chance to vote, use it as you wish.

The voice is about co-governance, not recognition. Recognition would be to amend the preamble to acknowledge indigenous history. Inserting a race based body and creating 2 classes of citizens is another thing entirely.

No, it is not. Read the words. This thread is about the "necessity of reparation of historic injustices", you either believe that there is a need for that or you don't. If you do, then recognition and the ability to have a voice is part of that process.

You can vote no, go for it. No need for the hysteria.

You’re confusing hysteria with facts. Most concerning is the number of people who cannot comprehend the implications of the proposed amendments.

Such as?

waveman wrote:

blackers wrote:

The referendum question relates to formal, constitutional recognition of the original inhabitants and the explicit requirement that the government of the day needs to provide the opportunity for representatives to provide advice on government actions that directly impact them. What's the problem? As TBB pointed out, it is not very different to the referendum proposal John Howard brought to the people. Everyone gets their chance to vote, use it as you wish.

The voice is about co-governance, not recognition. Recognition would be to amend the preamble to acknowledge indigenous history. Inserting a race based body and creating 2 classes of citizens is another thing entirely.

100%, what really shits me, is how people try to take some moral high ground on this, when they are voting for a segregation of representation and voices, it's so upside down and back to front.

Regarding implication's ive read many different things from various media articles, I honestly i dont totally understand or know what to believe and i doubt anyone really does know.

In regard to indigenous people, it won't make one bit of difference, those who are successful will continue to be successful those that are stuck in a cycle of poverty and violence etc will still be unless they themselves make change.

The big difference is more who gets to control things and $$$$, you can guarantee one thing for sure the ones behind the voice will ensure they keep the $$$ coming in to them or flow it onto those they are aligned with, the industry is worth literally billions.

Like most things all about money and politics.

"they are voting for a segregation of representation and voices,"

Yeah we don't want to threaten the LNP's near-monopoly on that.

To "govern" in Australia you have to win a majority of seats in the House of Representatives. The Voice will provide advice and make submissions that the Government of the day can accept, modify or reject.
Many groups provide advice and make submissions to the Government.
But, yeah, "co-governance", "segregation". Pfttt

With all due respect Indo,
I get the feeling that your perspective of
'those that are stuck in a cycle of poverty and violence etc will still be unless they themselves make change'...is exactly the reason why these changes to the constitution and to the political landscape need to be made.
You're completely supported in your views by a vast majority of the Australian population.
And look how that's turned out for those you mentioned above.
So as i said above, respectfully, i don't think your, or a vast majority of Australians who think just like you, are those the most qualified or properly informed enough to make those decisions.
I won't go into the details on that, particularly on generational trauma and it's lasting effects, because as you pointed out above, we'll never agree.

Indo "The big difference is more who gets to control things and $$$$, you can guarantee one thing for sure the ones behind the voice will ensure they keep the $$$ coming in to them or flow it onto those they are aligned with, the industry is worth literally billions."
Funny, don't recall any commentary from Indo about the billions shoveled out by the LNP to the likes of Gerry Harvey, Solomon Lew, The Murdochs, Hillsong Church and so on during the pandemic, or under Sports Rorts and the other rorts, or Barnaby's drought envoy $$$, or Angus Taylor's Cayman Island water fund or the taxpayer $$$ spent propping up property developers with negative gearing, or retiree boomers receiving franking credits.
Seems he only worries about indigenous $$$.
He's not racist though, he just cares too much!

Exactly, Indo wasn't worried about the revolving door of fossil fuel and finance "lobbyists" who were working not as advisers but actually as part of government. I mean, the Minerals Council of Australia's ex-Deputy CEO was Scott Morrison's Chief of Staff.
And Indo's talking about The Voice possibly being responsible for a "segregation of representation and voices"??
Eugenics Dreaming at his finest.

Sad watching another AFL player copping racial abuse from the fans last week.
It's almost a weekly occurence in one code of football or the other.
Even sadder watching as that same player, Jamarra Ugle Hagan broke into tears in the post game interview...after playing a cracking game ...just expressing how he's just an indigenous boy that wants to play footy. The weight of racism must be severe to carry in the public spotlight. Can't imagine.
I'd say the system is broken for indigenous Australians...this is just an example of the very end of the line from all of the causes.
Change is needed and whether the changes proposed are the right ones or not, i think it's time for all of us non indigenous, to let go of control and pass some power back to the original inhabitants of their own place in this land.
Either operate from fear or love. Fearing the outcome isn't healthy for anyone.
Hats off to the other indigenous fella, Arty!!....from around these parts, just up the road, that played a cracking first game tonight also.

View this post on Instagram

To think a player has to make this point 30 years later almost to the day.
Disgraceful.

adam12 wrote:

To "govern" in Australia you have to win a majority of seats in the House of Representatives. The Voice will provide advice and make submissions that the Government of the day can accept, modify or reject.

Many groups provide advice and make submissions to the Government.

But, yeah, "co-governance", "segregation". Pfttt

You better tell Marcia Langton the voice is only advisory, she doesn’t seem to think it should be:

Waveman, the wording in the interviewers question "until the Voice had been heard" is key, "heard', so a decision that comes within the scope of the Voice, i.e. one that specifically involves indigenous Australians, taken without "hearing" the Voice could be challenged, because the Constitution will say those decisions or laws can't be made without "hearing" the Voice. It doesn't say that the Voice prevails, just that it must be heard. The power to make laws is still contained in s51 & 52 of the Constitution, which can only be exercised by the Australian Government and to be the government you have to win a majority of House of Reps seats in an election. The Voice will not co-govern, it will have the power to be heard in specific areas, and as I said, it can be accepted, modified or rejected by the government. If it is not "heard" in those specific areas then a decision or law can be challenged in the High Court because the Constitution says it should be. Capiche?

Had a look at the crew behind Waveman’s source above. FairAustralia, part of Advance. Their talking points sound eerily familiar. And with 75 000 Facebook likes, truly representative. Unlike those woke folks at getup with only 500 000+.

“The group's website says it was founded in 2018 to fight “woke politicians and elitist activist groups” that were “taking Aussies for a ride with their radical agenda”.

On its 'about' page, Advance says its three key beliefs are ‘freedom,' 'security’ and ‘prosperity’ - and it wants Australia to double its defence spending.

“While the elites forget about the threats of Islamic terrorism and the spectre of the aggressive Chinese Communist Party, ADVANCE fights for a defence force that’s fit for purpose,” the page reads, next to ‘security’.

The group also claims that “mainstream Australia is under siege by stupid laws and woke ideologies like ‘net zero’”.

It states that “Australia is a free country”, fights to protect Australia Day and rejects “putting down Australia’s western cultural heritage as 'racist' or 'discriminatory'”.

The authorisation says the group is based in the ACT and has over 75,000 likes on Facebook.”

blackers wrote:

Had a look at the crew behind Waveman’s source above. FairAustralia, part of Advance. Their talking points sound eerily familiar. And with 75 000 Facebook likes, truly representative. Unlike those woke folks at getup with only 500 000+.

“The group's website says it was founded in 2018 to fight “woke politicians and elitist activist groups” that were “taking Aussies for a ride with their radical agenda”.

On its 'about' page, Advance says its three key beliefs are ‘freedom,' 'security’ and ‘prosperity’ - and it wants Australia to double its defence spending.

“While the elites forget about the threats of Islamic terrorism and the spectre of the aggressive Chinese Communist Party, ADVANCE fights for a defence force that’s fit for purpose,” the page reads, next to ‘security’.

The group also claims that “mainstream Australia is under siege by stupid laws and woke ideologies like ‘net zero’”.

It states that “Australia is a free country”, fights to protect Australia Day and rejects “putting down Australia’s western cultural heritage as 'racist' or 'discriminatory'”.

The authorisation says the group is based in the ACT and has over 75,000 likes on Facebook.”

Good work @blackers, also checked into the background of Fair Australia. They also claim to be a “grassroots” organisation just like those other well known Australian grassroots organisations like the IPA, the Minerals Council and Murdoch Media who routinely bankroll such campaigns, grifters and supporters

Have a go at the redneck guest speakers , can only imagine the type of crowd they would attract .

Fantastic Vote No to the Voice Event in Tamworth. Guest speakers Alan Jones, Barnaby Joyce MP, Senator Pauline Hanson and Gary Johns. pic.twitter.com/xzWJ1TUAQv

— Nyunggai Warren Mundine AO (@nyunggai) April 1, 2023

AndyM wrote:

Eugenics Dreaming at his finest.

This is such a weird insult and kind of a low life one too, can you tell me what its based on and what you are suggesting?

Im happily married to an Indonesian lady with brown skin and very proud to have kids of mixed race with quite brown skin. (especially my boy, lucky kid)

So if im a supporter of eugenics in anyway then it's one in making the world browner which is kind of weird thing to insult someone about especially considering the conversation.

From a physical point of view i do think brown skinned people do have advantages, i get burnt easy with my fairish skin, but my kids or wife can stay in the sun for hours with no suncream and rarely get burnt, plus i just think most white people in general are unattractive while people with brown or black skin in generally are more attractive but i guess thats down to personal opinion.

Indo if you can't work out by now why so many of your comments have rubbed people up the wrong way, there's no hope.

blackers wrote:

Had a look at the crew behind Waveman’s source above. FairAustralia, part of Advance. Their talking points sound eerily familiar. And with 75 000 Facebook likes, truly representative. Unlike those woke folks at getup with only 500 000+.

“The group's website says it was founded in 2018 to fight “woke politicians and elitist activist groups” that were “taking Aussies for a ride with their radical agenda”.

On its 'about' page, Advance says its three key beliefs are ‘freedom,' 'security’ and ‘prosperity’ - and it wants Australia to double its defence spending.

“While the elites forget about the threats of Islamic terrorism and the spectre of the aggressive Chinese Communist Party, ADVANCE fights for a defence force that’s fit for purpose,” the page reads, next to ‘security’.

The group also claims that “mainstream Australia is under siege by stupid laws and woke ideologies like ‘net zero’”.

It states that “Australia is a free country”, fights to protect Australia Day and rejects “putting down Australia’s western cultural heritage as 'racist' or 'discriminatory'”.

The authorisation says the group is based in the ACT and has over 75,000 likes on Facebook.”

So they're right wing nationalists.

AndyM wrote:

Indo if you can't work out by now why so many of your comments have rubbed people up the wrong way, there's no hope.

I know why, because it challenges their beliefs, people dont like that especially when they have no proper counter argument's

It's also the reason why people like you throw around lame insults trying to discredit people instead of having proper debate, it's sadly seen not just here but in wider society and media.

A great example was the whole "Let women speak" womens right rally thing the other week, instead of a mature debate in media and wider society on why women's safes spaces are important, everything was just thrown under a label of transphobia.

blackers wrote:

Had a look at the crew behind Waveman’s source above. FairAustralia, part of Advance. Their talking points sound eerily familiar. And with 75 000 Facebook likes, truly representative. Unlike those woke folks at getup with only 500 000+.

“The group's website says it was founded in 2018 to fight “woke politicians and elitist activist groups” that were “taking Aussies for a ride with their radical agenda”.

On its 'about' page, Advance says its three key beliefs are ‘freedom,' 'security’ and ‘prosperity’ - and it wants Australia to double its defence spending.

“While the elites forget about the threats of Islamic terrorism and the spectre of the aggressive Chinese Communist Party, ADVANCE fights for a defence force that’s fit for purpose,” the page reads, next to ‘security’.

The group also claims that “mainstream Australia is under siege by stupid laws and woke ideologies like ‘net zero’”.

It states that “Australia is a free country”, fights to protect Australia Day and rejects “putting down Australia’s western cultural heritage as 'racist' or 'discriminatory'”.

The authorisation says the group is based in the ACT and has over 75,000 likes on Facebook.”

I dont recall this group, but many of these aspect's sound very positive and real issues of concern.

Only aspects i really wouldn't agree with here is "The net Zero" thing, i think the long term goal should be net zero, although i don't believe its realistic or possible.

And the "doubling of defence spending" I have no idea whats so ever what our defence spending budget should be, i say leave that up to the experts to decide.

Indo, supporter of white nationalism.
Why am I not surprised.

Come on, Andy. You're better than that.