indo-dreaming wrote:

I focus wrote:

Trumpism here already?

Undermine the process, create outrage, fearmongering, create division, win win even if you lose.

Will be interesting to see if its changed.

Its actually the complete opposite, its about preventing the possibility of Trumpism happening post election.

BS
This attack on the independence of the AEC should be called out for what it is. Far right extremism. Even soft NO voters should be up in arms about this attack on our democracy.

Dude its a bit early to already be drunk

Its not an attack on anyone, and wanting to ensure an election is fair and democratic isnt either left or right, its something we all should want and support.

Its pretty simple either just make only Yes & No votes or Y and N count or provide two boxes for Yes and No

I happen to agree. A simple yes or no. Anything other than that- tick, cross, smiley face, swastika, taijitu or whatever else should be disregarded. I can't see what the fuss is about.

“…. its something we all should want and support.” …. and you will get that if the AEC is allowed to do its job without political interference

Suggest you google the meaning of words like independent apolitical impartial and then say out loud so hopefully it sinks in that’s what the AEC is.

….. until the next fake conspiracy crisis engineered by the right then

On the money Guy.
Just another distraction cooked up by the naysayers

zenagain wrote:

I happen to agree. A simple yes or no. Anything other than that- tick, cross, smiley face, swastika, taijitu or whatever else should be disregarded. I can't see what the fuss is about.

It’s not how votes have been counted in this country since federation I’m afraid hence the role of scrutineers used by all political parties to make judgement on the voting intentions of the extremely low percentage of ballots that are vaguely marked.* So @zen it’s pure BS to argue nobbling the AEC in their work by politicians is needed here.

* I’ve personally worked for the AEC in polling places maybe a dozen times and the of votes cast that can’t be counted at each polling place would be less than 10 (out of thousands) at each election notwithstanding the drawing of dick and balls on ballot papers.

GuySmiley wrote:

zenagain wrote:

I happen to agree. A simple yes or no. Anything other than that- tick, cross, smiley face, swastika, taijitu or whatever else should be disregarded. I can't see what the fuss is about.

It’s not how votes have been counted in this country since federation I’m afraid hence the role of scrutineers used by all political parties to make judgement on the voting intentions of the extremely low percentage of ballots that are vaguely marked.* So @zen it’s pure BS to argue nobbling the AEC in their work by politicians is needed here.

* I’ve personally worked for the AEC in polling places maybe a dozen times and the of votes cast that can’t be counted at each polling place would be less than 10 (out of thousands) at each election notwithstanding the drawing of dick and balls on ballot papers.

This is weird im a conservative going, look a small change makes sense to prevent a possible issue.

And your a so called progressive going " but but this is the way its been since federation, we cant change thing's now"

This isn't a standard election in a standard election you dont have this issue.

Referendums are rare our last one was in 1999 that's almost 25 years ago, we only get to vote in a couple in a life's.

So why not get it right and fix things and prevent any future issues?

The solution is very simple, just two boxes, one for Yes one for No, then there is no fuzzy lines or confusion.

I think writing Yes or No in the one box provided does not consecute a fuzzy line or be liable to cause confusion.
Except maybe for Indo and his ilk.

I have faith that with a bit of practice Indo can spell a word instead of using a tick or a cross.

AndyM wrote:

I have faith that with a bit of practice Indo can spell a word instead of using a tick or a cross.

No is a pretty easy word to spell without a greengrocer's apostrophe.

Indo.

The gift that keeps giving.

Indo’s ‘ilk’?

Where else does that Dandy market and Indigenous Australian, milk coffee ‘jokes’ crap get look awayed, welcomed, supported and promoted. There are klans of that ‘ilk’.

I appreciate what you guys are trying to do for Indigenous Australians here, but the reality on here, this peculiar ‘ilk’, is that you are literally pushing shit up hill. Sugar coated shit.

mattlock wrote:

I think writing Yes or No in the one box provided does not consecute a fuzzy line or be liable to cause confusion.

Except maybe for Indo and his ilk.

truebluebasher wrote:

1999 ~ Referendum Aboriginal / Migrant enrollment was very low.

2012 ~ 44% of Australians wouldn't be able to read a Ballot Paper...

2021 ~ Up to 50% of Oz > 70% of remote Aboriginals can't read the Reffo Ballot Paper

Oz has record Migrant % intake and record compulsory direct migrant enrollment

Oz currently has record Indigenous Vote Enrollments > (eg: Higher than Aboriginal School enrollment)

That sure don't add up!

Do the Maths...for > Record Compulsory Reffo / Aboriginal Direct Enrollment...

Most migrants + Aboriginals / Over Half of the Voters are illiterate & can't read the Reffo Ballot Paper

Up to 20% minority literate [YES] vs [NO] camps have indicated they're pissed & won't Vote in Reffo.

Majority of Voters have no idea what an Aboriginal or Reffo is but will decide Indigenous Status.

Yet as if by some miracle > 99% of [yes] [No] Ballots will be perfectly AEC compliant...(Shh!)

Q: Is it fair to mandate that illiterate majority of Australians run Oz Policy!

In other words : Compulsory Voting for majority illiterate populations is beyond comprehension!

How about...just sayin'

Only when Aussies think they can vote...then we let them enroll & Vote without influence! Sound Fair!

Saves the Govt bankrolling the AEC to rig more Votes each outing...getting mighty expensive!

Mate me and my family will be writing NO, no issues there.

It's these voters above that are of concern or just lazy people who want to get in and out and dont give a fuck and might not even read the forms properly they just know how they will vote and being lazy use a tick or cross.

What happens when a heap of these people mark a cross thinking it will count as a NO?

While the same demographic that support the voice and give a tick will have their vote counted.

Hows that fair?

Just make the system fair for all, either ticks and crosses count or they dont.

Or better still how hard is it to provide a yes box and a no box?

BTW. I dont have much faith in people reading things properly, i mean Albo couldn't even be bothered to read past page one of the Uluru statement from the heart.

"why would i" was his reply when asked.

You seriously couldn't make this shit up

. https://www.2gb.com/outrageous-dutton-to-take-action-over-confusing-voi… Spud the dud reckons if he can win a no vote on the voice then he’s a chance at defeating albo at the next election. Indo tell him he’s dreaming .

Indo the percentage, if it happens, is minuscule. This reeks of how you always think the populace thinks just like you. And then Dictatater Dan romps back in.
Actually not even an equivalent. Ahh whatever!!!

Hiccups wrote:

AndyM wrote:

I have faith that with a bit of practice Indo can spell a word instead of using a tick or a cross.

No is a pretty easy word to spell without a greengrocer's apostrophe.

That remain’s to be seen by the rest of u’s.

Indo-Dunderhead wrote;

"we only get to vote in a couple in a life's."
FMD, learn English and in particular the use of apostrophes, before you start trying to rewrite referendum questions.

"So why not get it right and fix things and prevent any future issues?

The solution is very simple, just two boxes, one for Yes one for No, then there is no fuzzy lines or confusion. "

Again, the 'solution' is not very simple, it requires legislative change, an amendment Bill that must pass both Houses of Parliament through several stages in both Houses. with debates, any changes by the Senate sent back to the House for further debate and voting and then it requires assent to become law.
The referendum is in October, it is nearly September, it would not be possible to pass any law in this time period. Not "simple" you dunce. And not a "solution" because there is not a problem, whether English speaking voters or not.
The change you propose, two boxes, has been debated, litigated and decided undesirable by both the
Courts, the AEC and the Parliament over thirty years ago and the system decided on, one box, yes, no or a tick has been settled law since 1988. It works perfectly well with less than 1% of votes rejected in the last referendum. The "very simple" thing here is you.
You don't have the knowledge, understanding or English skills to be suggesting any new system for conducting referendums. You are just a bitter narcissist and racist that is looking for any excuse to oppose the Uluru Statement and the Voice and this is just your latest pathetic attempt in the long line of bullshit you contaminate discussion on these pages with. Tomorrow you will be onto some other bullshit.
I repeat my earlier comment, educate yourself or STFU. The same thing the AEC told Dutton today.
And pay for a SN subscription and stop freeloading your toxic opinions onto others.

You would think he would have spoken up when the legislation was under discussion in parliament.
https://www.theage.com.au/politics/federal/aec-ticks-off-peter-dutton-o…

Green Ant Bully : [X] Files

AEC Cave Art
Dates from The Ancient Naidoc 05 07 2019
Prime Minister for Everything Dreamtime

AEC [ Our Vote Our Future ]

.....VOICE.....
:: TREATY ::
....TRUTH....

Dreamtime Experts swear it had nuthin' to do with drummin up Votes for AEC's 2023 Treaty-Reffo.
Just a Heiroglitch...No ink on our hands!
https://www.facebook.com/aecourvoteourfuture/photos/pb.100069402750630…

Supafreak wrote:

. https://www.2gb.com/outrageous-dutton-to-take-action-over-confusing-voi… Spud the dud reckons if he can win a no vote on the voice then he’s a chance at defeating albo at the next election. Indo tell him he’s dreaming .

How can I fit my cock and balls cartoon into that little rectangle. I like to sign off with a XXX. It’s just what I do. eee aaaw eee aww

AndyM wrote:

I have faith that with a bit of practice Indo can spell a word instead of using a tick or a cross.

All Things Religion. But faith is not gonna be enough. We'll need prayers. We'll need Opti back to administrate.

We’ll need all that and more… lawd help u’s
- an ode to the village IDiot :

Saying Voters should understand [yes] [no] is less of the issue...to what their Voting is!
Part 1.......
Data is true as each & every year more illiterate Aussies are mandated to Vote...
Since 1999 insular Reffo...AEC Mandated Enrollment shift exposes full illiterate demographic.
In fact you'll find with record Enrollment comes record non participation...can fast track to end for that!

OECD Literacy Levels 1/2 is Functionally illiterate...
(Meaning) Around 40% of the World can't read Oz Reffo Ballot Paper in any language!
Not an issue for low % Roll but Oz has ramped a record 97.5% Roll due to mandated enrollment
https://www.aec.gov.au/referendums/learn/the-question.html#:~:text=The%….

But how is this possible with higher participation in higher education levels...Huh! Explain That!
Firstly! Literate Aussies are smart enough to know with out asking...they're entitled to Vote.

Part 2 Back 2 School...................
tbb can't read very well, suffer (CSR) in fact...struggle a lot with anything lengthy or small print legal.
Oddly used to Volunteer to Change Readers and advance kidz reading thru reading levels.
Also taught reading in the Kidz Primary school.
If not tbb then who...well, when teacher/s asked for assistance no others offered.

Teacher/s would send over groups of 6-8...usually outside the door in natural light! (Important!)
Individual use of natural light onto the pages to marry sight 'n'sound into the natural soundscape.
Kids could read alongside birds singing with wind in their hair...can posture like actors on a stage!

Meaning...every kid senses the world differently but are confined in cemented IT class settings!
Teachers were smart enough to afford struggling readers to engage their naturally wild instinct.
The other secret being...not reading or being bullied in front of whole class..(6-8 promotes confidence)
Kinda like self help group circles...works wonders as Bullies now naturally engage to lift group member.
Sure...sometimes more focus on one or another student so not to fall behind...goes without saying.
Be surprised how a slow coach can find their wheels and race ahead...surprise the teach', parents 'n' all.
For those students...tbb was personally thanked by parents in child's development & equally stoked!
It s true that when Grom picks up reading it drives them to excel across all aspects...cool to see!
Each school class teacher needs a volunteer to meet literacy targets...it's too much to expect otherwise!
All teachers were excellent & very thankful as office staff and Principal/s.

Part 3...........Voting Day
Voice Voters will hunch over their own shadow fighting their way outta a Bleak Ebay Box.
Each Booth should advantage natural or built lighting to highlight Democratic process not hide it!
Sure...keep the flares but don't box voters into the dark...be spooked by AEC staff.
See here : Perfectly good free Light being blocked out (Can easily save time / energy / cost / angst!)
https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/4e87a6532ac7f9773fca9f385f2e56de504d1ed2…
https://dandenong.starcommunity.com.au/files/2022/11/election_282418_02…

tbb can read enough to understand the ballot but also know as fact many would further struggle!

Part 4 .......Demographics
Faster Oz ages the higher % of poor sighted least educated become the majority on the Roll.
Tech dumbs down our Teen Boys > Young men are least likely to Vote...then Wot!
Tech reaches out to expose Mandated remote Voice Illiteracy!
Record Tech Translation Migration is also fuelling record multilingual less literate population.
Note below how Migrant literacy is above the intake rate...by default > increases Oz % Pop illiteracy.

Naturally by default, illiteracy is increasing each year...literate people should understand how this works.

Part 5.....Oz Rates of Illiteracy (As tbb referred to in earlier post + links)
Oz literacy 1/2 Levels by Demographic or can't read the Reffo Ballot Paper
Migrants (No English Language) = Men 33% + Women 44% (Above Migrant Intake 30%)
Illiterate Oz total = 44%
https://www.sbs.com.au/voices/article/how-we-can-improve-adult-literacy…
Aussies that can't read a Recipe or Script = 47%
https://www.abc.net.au/local/videos/2012/09/07/3585457.htm
Aboriginal (Grade 7 > 9) = 48% Avg > 56% remote...reading rates are dropping annually
Tas = 50% ( Men 47.2% Women 53.1%)
https://www.news.com.au/national/breaking-news/tasmanian-adults-disprop…
Outback Aboriginal Students = Grade 7(44%) Grade 9 (50%)
Adult Aborigines = 45%-65%
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/jul/30/literacy-just-do…
Remote Aboriginals = Adults 70% (Grades 7-9) 71% keeps dropping off further annually.
https://www.smh.com.au/politics/nsw/literacy-program-teaching-aborigina…
https://www.indigenoushpf.gov.au/measures/2-04-literacy-numeracy
Aussies + Numbers = 70% have limited ability to read Script Doses.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2008-02-21/almost-half-australians-cant-rea…
Business = 74% are affected (eg: Workers say 40 hours boss! (why!) Coz they don't know any other?)
Business = 93% Employers are concerned about their workers low literacy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=QI11yrWWMu0

Part 6 .....Current Reffo language barrier

1999 Reffo pamphlets came in 17 o/s languages
17 July 2023 AEC released [YES] [NO] Pamphlets (Still not other languages)
https://www.aec.gov.au/referendums/learn/the-yes-no-pamphlet.html
2023 Reffo pamphlets will eventually come in 35 o/s Languages (AEC : 'This work can take time!')
(Fact!) ALP opposed > [L] campaigned for this super expensive exercise or refused to give supply!

Part 7 .....Record AEC Aboriginal / Enrollment = Record low AEC voter turnout...well durr!
Who coulda guessed - Can lead a Horse to water but can't make him drink...Stubborn as a mule!

Highest Voter Turnouts were in 1990's last century (Reffo) falling to record low 2022-23 Elections
Enrolled & don't Vote % = 20-30y 20% > 30-40y 15% > 40-50y 10% > 60-70y 5% > 70+ 10%
2022 Average 10% don't Vote > Guys are droppin' off faster than chix.
2023 Qld ROBO Fed By Election = 28% did not Vote -14% + 7% informal = 35% failed to Vote...Shh!
2023 WA Premier By Election = 25% did not Vote (Down 9.46%)
2023 1/10 Won't Vote in Reffo + extra 9% say they aren't sure if they will.
https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/one-in-10-say-they-re-unlikely-…

Annual AEC Recap : 2022 -10% > Fed By Elect -28-35% > State Premier -25% > Reffo -10-19%
2022 Fed Election..as low as 25% - 49.4% of enrolled Aboriginals Voted...(Like Wow Wipeout!)
Just imagine the faces if that record low First Nation Vote for record Cost 2023 Voice Reffo...
Straight Up...non voting tbb never wish a black eye to AEC coz all cop that humiliation...hell no!

Part 8....Reffo End Game...
First Nation have every right to boycott the Reffo & so be it, if they walk away with pride intact!
Exactly...Just like the Com Games...can chuck it up yer arse...Salute! Might be the least costly option!

AEC are fast losing cred after orchestrating natcab peak Covid Test lockout of the 200,000 [+] sods.
Now the mate's of whomever direct 3rd party enrolment scam > diggin' their own grave with Reffo!
People are fast fleeing the Green Ant Mound...once bitten twice shy babe!
[factcheck] Media Darlings asleep at the wheel again...Wot! Like Wotz goin' on again!

Let's just hope what ever the result that it doesn't come down to a small margin otherwise we might have issues that could have been prevented through applying some common sense..

Troll
Pay for a subscription

Supafreak wrote:

. https://www.2gb.com/outrageous-dutton-to-take-action-over-confusing-voi… Spud the dud reckons if he can win a no vote on the voice then he’s a chance at defeating albo at the next election. Indo tell him he’s dreaming .

thanks again supa you are the few yes ppl who try to answer with substance instead of a rant.

i printed a copy of the ballot but noted where "a proposed law:" was it was blank then under the empty space was "do you approve this proposed alteration?" alongside it a blank box with write "yes" or "no".

so 9mnths of propaganda to vote yes, 20yrs in the planning and this is the best the aec can produce? a ballot paper with no info what to vote on?

the yes23 mob have been emphatic about how simple this request to change our constitution is and yet no info on the ballot paper.

Sameaswas,
"The question on the ballot paper will be: “A Proposed Law: to alter the Constitution to recognise the First Peoples of Australia by establishing an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice. Do you approve this proposed alteration?”

The question, and the proposed new s129, have been available on the AEC website for a long time.
The sample ballot paper was released to show the voting format.

Here you go sameaswas

You can even access the Yes/No pamphlet that gives both sides arguments via the link at the bottom of the page. No need for Sky or ABC now

https://www.aec.gov.au/referendums/learn/the-question.html

sameaswas wrote:

Supafreak wrote:

. https://www.2gb.com/outrageous-dutton-to-take-action-over-confusing-voi… Spud the dud reckons if he can win a no vote on the voice then he’s a chance at defeating albo at the next election. Indo tell him he’s dreaming .

thanks again supa you are the few yes ppl who try to answer with substance instead of a rant.

i printed a copy of the ballot but noted where "a proposed law:" was it was blank then under the empty space was "do you approve this proposed alteration?" alongside it a blank box with write "yes" or "no".

so 9mnths of propaganda to vote yes, 20yrs in the planning and this is the best the aec can produce? a ballot paper with no info what to vote on?

the yes23 mob have been emphatic about how simple this request to change our constitution is and yet no info on the ballot paper.

Wish i could find it, there was a good video on this.

The question on the ballot paper I beleive will have

“A Proposed Law: to alter the Constitution to recognise the First Peoples of Australia by establishing an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice. Do you approve this proposed alteration?”

But my understanding is

it wont have the actually details of the new Chapter on the ballot which are in Fliplids link

"129 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice

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."

Obviously its far from modest, its a whole new chapter giving one ethnic group powers others dont have.

And as you can see while the question in the ballot focuses on recognition, obviously that just the icing and the real proposal(the cake) is a race based voice.

There has even been talk of possible legal challenges to this, but lets be real that aint going to happen.

See post below

Heres two recent media examples talking about this

"Voice referendum question likely ‘misleading, unconstitutional’, legal experts warn

The wording of the Voice referendum question could be fundamentally “misleading” because it fails to make a key distinction, according to a legal expert.

The wording of the Voice referendum question being put to Australian voters could be fundamentally “misleading” and unconstitutional because it fails to state the core function of the proposed body, according to one of the nation’s leading silks.

At the upcoming referendum, likely to be held in October or November, Australians will be asked to vote yes or no on a single question, “A Proposed Law: to alter the Constitution to recognise the First Peoples of Australia by establishing an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice. Do you approve this proposed alteration?”

Victorian barrister and constitutional law expert Stuart Wood KC, in a legal opinion for the conservative Institute of Public Affairs think tank published on Thursday, argued that the question “misleads and misinforms voters” and has a “serious deficiency” as it “fails to state the core function of the Voice”, and would be “open to challenge in the High Court of Australia”.

“In our view, the government’s proposed question misleads and misinforms voters about what they are being asked to approve at this year’s referendum,” Mr Wood said in the opinion, jointly written with barristers Paul Jeffreys and Jakub Patela."

“The central issue with the question is that, although it mimics the long title of the Bill, it fails to state the core function of the Voice, being to make representations to the Parliament and the Executive Government of the Commonwealth on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.”

The question “instead, as presently framed, emphasises the notion of constitutional recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, with the establishing of the new body being only a symbolic step to achieve that aim”, they wrote.

“This is significant in circumstances where there is differential support amongst electors as to the concept of constitutional recognition, and the concept of a new constitutionally entrenched body,” the opinion said.

Assuming the proposed question remains deficient, they argue it would be “open to challenge by seeking relevant relief, such as a High Court declaration that an answer to the proposed question can not be taken to constitute approval of the proposed law, or an injunction preventing it being put to electors”.

The barristers suggested an alternative referendum question that could be put to voters instead.

“A Proposed Law: To alter the Constitution by establishing a body to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice that, despite any Act of Parliament to the contrary, may make representations to the Parliament and the Executive Government on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. Do you approve this proposed alteration?”

Daniel Wild, the IPA’s deputy executive director, said in a statement that the legal opinion showed “fundamental questions now hang over the constitutional validity of the Voice to Parliament referendum”.

“The federal government has sought to prevent the release of detail on the Voice to Parliament proposal at all costs,” Mr Wild said.

“Mr Wood KC’s advice demonstrates the attempts to shroud the danger and divisiveness of the proposal have created a questionable and contestable legal scenario. Every step of the way, the Prime Minister, and Voice to Parliament advocates, have sought to deny Australians basic details, to stack the deck in favour of the Yes case, refused to answer rudimentary questions, and have admitted to not fully reading critical documentation on key legal matters.”

Continued here, its a long article

https://www.news.com.au/national/courts-law/voice-referendum-question-l…

"One of the nation’s leading silks has warned that the referendum on the proposed Indigenous voice to parliament is vulnerable to legal challenge in the High Court because it misleads voters."

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/subscribe/news/1/?sourceCode=TAWEB_WRE…

re legal challenges
Wasn’t that scare campaign debunked ages ago by lots of other silks in the know. Only assuming but I’d think Labor would have had this looked at ad nauseam especially since it was raised by the No campaign. Spud hasn’t gone there for ages. Think he might have been briefed?

seeds wrote:

re legal challenges

Wasn’t that scare campaign debunked ages ago by lots of other silks in the know. Only assuming but I’d think Labor would have had this looked at ad nauseam especially since it was raised by the No campaign. Spud hasn’t gone there for ages. Think he might have been briefed?

Both articles are from just over a week ago.

There not scare campaigns there articles that show how legal experts even think the question is loaded.

Yeah Im sure Labor will get away with it im sure they had legal experts ensure the question technically passes while still misleads.

I hope Spud has been briefed, id say tell him to say as little as possible and stay out of the spotlight and just let Albo and Linda put their foot in their mouths.

They have done an excellent job so far.

Look out the latest confected scare campaign issue has landed …. The IDjit never sleeps in his enthusiasm to poo-wash the issue.

Legal challenges …. Bahahaha

So the IPA paid a barrister to invent an opposing opinion to print in Murdoch's shit rags and the nuff nuff freeloading troll eats it up with a spoon.
So where is the legal challenge? Where is the injunction?
Non existent.
You could pay Stuart Wood KC and his band of shysters to argue the world is flat and they would do it for a price.
"Constitutional Law expert Stuart Wood KC" Pftt, spare me. He's the IPA's go to rent a dissenter.

Here is an (incomplete) list of actual Constitutional Law experts who have rejected the 'rent an opinion' of Mr Woods:

Professor Cheryl Saunders AO, Laureate Professor Emeritus at the University of Melbourne and President Emeritus of the International Association of Constitutional Law.
Professor Anne Twomey AO, Professor of Constitutional Law and Director of the Constitutional Reform Unit at Sydney Law School at the University of Sydney.
The Hon Mary Gaudron KC
Former Judge of the High Court of Australia
The Hon Carmel McLure AC KC
Former President of the Supreme Court of Western Australia Court of Appeal
The Hon Stephen Charles AO KC
Former Judge of the Supreme Court of Victoria Court of Appeal
The Hon Paul Stein AM KC
Former Judge of the Supreme Court of NSW Court of Appeal, former President of the Anti-Discrimination Board
The Hon David Harper AM KC
Former Judge of the Supreme Court of Victoria Court of Appeal
The Hon Anthony Whealy KC
Former Judge of the Supreme Court of NSW Court of Appeal
The Hon Robert Redlich AM KC
Former Commissioner of the Victorian Independent Broad-based Anti-Corruption Commission (IBAC), former Judge of the Supreme Court of Victoria Court of Appeal
The Hon Margaret White AO
Former Judge of the Supreme Court of Queensland Court of Appeal

Add to that list;
Former High Court Chief Justices Robert French and Murray Gleeson
Former High Court Justice Kenneth Hayne, and
Current Australian Solicitor General Dr Stephen Donaghue KC.

Look it up and stop reposting Murdoch/IPA bullshit you freeloading troll. You have no idea what you are talking about.
Educate yourself or STFU.

indo-dreaming screeched to his followers… oar their abowtz:

‘id say tell him to say as little as possible and stay out of the spotlight and just let Albo and Linda put their foot in their mouths. Thenn Eye wood teech hymn wiv meye inta meedeurt butt xbert trayding scills howl too loose awl orv hiss munny… again… ann wee wood half are larf wiv tha cidz!’

Swillnut.

Please say yes as quickly as possible.

It’s all there in the “ secret government documents “

…‘we might have issues that could have been prevented through applying some common sense..’

;)

Indo, first article was an opinion piece. refer to ‘bias(ed)’ in the dictionary.
2nd paywalled but wouldn’t have been any better

Here is some reading for you Indo-dopey, so you don't have to rely on Rupert Murdoch shit rags and rent a silk opinions on the legality of the referendum. Enjoy, learn, listen to real experts or are you going to live in your racist bubble forever?

https://australiainstitute.org.au/post/leading-judges-support-the-voice/
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/apr/14/constitutional-e…
https://www.sydney.edu.au/law/industry-and-community/the-voice-expert-v…
https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/constitutional-experts-reject-c…
https://www.rmit.edu.au/news/crosscheck/the-voice-and-the-high-court-ch…
https://citynews.com.au/2023/constitutional-expert-says-voice-wording-c…
https://www.themandarin.com.au/215932-voice-referendum-question-explain…
https://theconversation.com/10-questions-about-the-voice-to-parliament-…
https://www.indigconlaw.org/home/submission-the-imperative-of-constitut…
https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/no-scope-for-voice-litigation-ex-c…
https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/we-re-not-allowed-to-use-the-r-…
https://www.auspublaw.org/first-nations-voice/the-voice-a-step-forward-…
https://www.qlsproctor.com.au/2023/03/former-cj-french-joins-discussion…
When you are done with that I can give you more if you like.
See if you can find anyone supporting the IPA opinion that the referendum is open to legal challenge or injunction amongst the expert opinions above.

seeds wrote:

Indo, first article was an opinion piece. refer to ‘bias(ed)’ in the dictionary.

2nd paywalled but wouldn’t have been any better

Of course they are opinion pieces unless its reporting on something thats already happened things are generally opinions, they are qualified in the field opinions though.

Yeah of course you will find those who don't agree too, its the nature of the beast,

Supafreak wrote:

It’s all there in the “ secret government documents “

No need for secret files even online public files like the full Uluru statement from the heart, is now a conspiracy theory according to Albo

Cause "why would i read it"

But… the opinion of the author always mirrors the opinion of the publisher.

remember the secret government documents jacinta price found https://cairnsnews.org/2023/04/17/foi-reply-reveals-the-voice-will-enab… and indo believes this crap

Red cross points. Yeah some ‘opinions’ of people involved in discussions. Nothing wrong with that.
As Indo has said before there are many mobs and they don’t always have the same views.
But ‘fact’ is what was agreed on in the end and what is freely available to be read.

Supafreak wrote:

remember the secret government documents jacinta price found https://cairnsnews.org/2023/04/17/foi-reply-reveals-the-voice-will-enab… and indo believes this crap

Those are minutes from meetings they are thoughts and wants recorded of real people involved in the USFTH same as the other minutes of meetings that are here and have at times said pretty much the same things
https://www.niaa.gov.au/sites/default/files/foi-log/foi-2223-016.pdf

So yes i 100% believe that these thought's and wants are real, doesn't mean they will ever get what they want, but its a clear insight into the mentality that we are dealing with, one of seeking money and power.

We also have people like Thomas Mayo & Teela Reid in videos etc saying very similar things.(and these are people who often share a stage with Albo on the issue they aren't complete nobodies they are key players)

Are the documents secret, well secret means to be kept unknown or from others, 100% the Yes camp would love it if these thought's and ideas now weren't seen by the public because they are now very damaging, but under the FOI act people like Jacinta can request they are made public so they cant be kept secret.

BTW. Honestly at the time this first came up i was a little apprehensive on this, it sounded a little out there, but now we have so much other evidence that confirms these weren't just one off views, like i said we have the other minutes of all the meetings and videos these aren't ideas or thoughts from the NO camp, they are thoughts and ideas provided from either these people mouths or from government released documents. (so dont even dare suggest a conspiracy or false information etc)

Honestly i think people like you are very naive in thinking the motivation here is all somehow goodwill and the voice is the end game, the more you read all the offical documents including the full 26 pages the report and minutes and listen to what those involved have said in the past when they had nothing to lose(like they do now being much more careful in what they say) you can clearly see there is three motivations, power, money and a type of revenge mentality.

" you can clearly see there is three motivations, power, money and a type of revenge mentality."
Sounds like a form of reparation to me. Good!!
I think you're on the wrong thread knucklehead.

Im definitely in the right thread, your nutty divisive race based revenge mentality thoughts that started this thread are exactly the same thing.

You ever been to the indigenous strongholds in central, northern or western Australia? You are so sure in your opinions im assuming at the very least you have a little lived experience from the actual ground.

Surely the first questions you would have after visiting these places would have to be, where the fuck are all these billions of dollars we are spending actually going and is Albo's token voice going to make any difference on the ground.

southernraw wrote:

You ever been to the indigenous strongholds in central, northern or western Australia? You are so sure in your opinions im assuming at the very least you have a little lived experience from the actual ground.

I have been to some of these places but this isn't actually about those communities, its the city Aboriginal generally of mixed race that have the revenge type mentality and ones seeking money and power those Aboriginals in the bush are just pawns.

Anyway i better get out and about and ditch this screen, take the kids down to do some beach combing.