The election thread - Two middle-late aged white men trying to be blokey and convincing..., same old shit, FFS.

[Dales Cannon]

Had an interesting morning coffee with a mate who is a Barrister. His take is that the voice is fine but the unknown back up legislation 'could' be an issue whereby that legislation turns an advisory body into an authority. I countered that legislation is not enshrined in the constitution and subject to change and that the days of uncontrolled majorities are a thing of the past. He also mentioned the full Uluru document, which I have only scanned, saying the one pager hides the real intent. Interesting take. I will properly read the whole document.

 

[pink poodle]

Captain Cook was a notoriously good negotiator @dirtdad . His work around Hawaii is held in high regard.

 

[mike14]

worrying about legislation that hasn't been proposed , let alone written, seems a bit odd. Especially for a barrister...

 

[dirtdad]

Captain Cook was a notoriously good negotiator @dirtdad . His work around Hawaii is held in high regard.

I heard he spearheaded the entire thing!

 

[rangersac]

worrying about legislation that hasn't been proposed , let alone written, seems a bit odd. Especially for a barrister...

Not to mention is a massive scare tactic being used by the No campaign

 

[rockmoose]

Not to mention is a massive scare tactic being used by the No campaign

Yes, I was wondering if that barrister was a regular, blue collar mechanic in his spare time.

 

[Mica]

Not to mention is a massive scare tactic being used by the No campaign

What scare campaign Reckon they've just stitched up a whole local government area with the timing of this one.

https://www.news.com.au/national/queensland/news/native-title-claim-underway-on-3500-brisbane-properties-along-redland-coast/news-story/67000f096ad7d2034d67250b8b526bf6

Not my usual "news" source but had to go hunting as hadn't heard of it. One of the boys at work who lives out this way just mentioned it and is peaking. Pretty sure I know which way his vote is going now. Plenty of misinformation and opinions flying around from the usual suspects...

I reckon the clearest reason to vote yes is to just look at who is saying to vote no.

 

[bear the bear]

 

[Flow-Rider]

Had an interesting morning coffee with a mate who is a Barrister. His take is that the voice is fine but the unknown back up legislation 'could' be an issue whereby that legislation turns an advisory body into an authority. I countered that legislation is not enshrined in the constitution and subject to change and that the days of uncontrolled majorities are a thing of the past. He also mentioned the full Uluru document, which I have only scanned, saying the one pager hides the real intent. Interesting take. I will properly read the whole document.

This is one of the highest professional experts in the country on constitutional law.

In this interview, Professor Nicholas Aroney delves into the intricate legal powers surrounding The Voice referendum. He navigates the complex landscape of mixed beliefs regarding legal interference, shedding light on potential challenges that could arise at the High Court level. Nicholas Aroney is Professor of Constitutional Law at The University of Queensland and an External Fellow of the Centre for Law and Religion at Emory University. He has held visiting positions at Oxford, Cambridge, Paris II, Edinburgh, Durham, Sydney, Emory and Tilburg universities. Professor Aroney has published over 150 journal articles, book chapters and books in the fields of constitutional law, comparative constitutional law and legal theory. He has led several international research projects in comparative federalism, bicameralism, legal pluralism, and law & religion, and he speaks frequently at international conferences on these topics.

 

[Haakon]

The sort of shit I find on my rusted on LNP voting uncle… Sigh.

Bronwyn Bishop tells powerful story #shorts

Videohttps://youtu.be/CPxnN6r5kWYMusichttps://youtu.be/K-bjI-wlyJMBronwyn Bishop, aboriginal affairs, disadvantage, poverty, referendum, voice to parliament,...

youtube.com

 

[Stredda]

Just had this message come through on my phone.

 

[rockmoose]

This is one of the highest professional experts in the country on constitutional law.

In this interview, Professor Nicholas Aroney delves into the intricate legal powers surrounding The Voice referendum. He navigates the complex landscape of mixed beliefs regarding legal interference, shedding light on potential challenges that could arise at the High Court level. Nicholas Aroney is Professor of Constitutional Law at The University of Queensland and an External Fellow of the Centre for Law and Religion at Emory University. He has held visiting positions at Oxford, Cambridge, Paris II, Edinburgh, Durham, Sydney, Emory and Tilburg universities. Professor Aroney has published over 150 journal articles, book chapters and books in the fields of constitutional law, comparative constitutional law and legal theory. He has led several international research projects in comparative federalism, bicameralism, legal pluralism, and law & religion, and he speaks frequently at international conferences on these topics.

Yeah alright, but he's no Dennis Denuto.

 

[Oddjob]

Just had this message come through on my phone.
View attachment 402484

I hate those SMS ads with a white hot passion. I was voting yes already, now I'm going to do so twice!

Sent from my M2012K11AG using Tapatalk

 

[Sky_Collapsed]

the main issue with it is the cost and potential legal issues. i mean if it's an advisory board governments can still ignore it which makes no better than what is already in place and it just cost us money. the referendum alone is costing hundreds of millions and i have no idea how much the board is going to cost.

There are better ways to use this money like oh, i don't know, directly giving it to aforementioned communities.

I'm voting no and will not be changing my mind unless someone pays me good money to do so.

 

[Haakon]

the main issue with it is the cost and potential legal issues. i mean if it's an advisory board governments can still ignore it which makes no better than what is already in place and it just cost us money. the referendum alone is costing hundreds of millions and i have no idea how much the board is going to cost.

There are better ways to use this money like oh, i don't know, directly giving it to aforementioned communities.

I'm voting no and will not be changing my mind unless someone pays me good money to do so.

Ah yes. Good old money. The ever reliable and ultimate arbiter of what’s right and moral.

 

[Sky_Collapsed]

Ah yes. Good old money. The ever reliable and ultimate arbiter of what’s right and moral.

Because what the voice claims to do can already be done with what's in place now. It's onyl an advisory board so as per usual it can be ignored so i don't really see the point in having it.

Whenever I've brought this up the yes people usually just ignore me or make childish comments.

 

[mike14]

Because what the voice claims to do can already be done with what's in place now. It's onyl an advisory board so as per usual it can be ignored so i don't really see the point in having it.

Whenever I've brought this up the yes people usually just ignore me or make childish comments.

Maybe that's because your argument boils down to "I don't want to"?
It's entirely plausible to say the voice will have no real impact as it's advisory only, but even if that's your stance why not just vote yes on the off chance that it actually helps as at least parts of the first nations communities believe it might? The $$ for the referendum has already been allocated, so you don't lose anything and your life goes on unchanged either way...

If it doesn't affect you, why would you pick the path that doesn't help others?

 

[rangersac]

Because what the voice claims to do can already be done with what's in place now. It's onyl an advisory board so as per usual it can be ignored so i don't really see the point in having it.

Whenever I've brought this up the yes people usually just ignore me or make childish comments.

Not quite. The major difference between the Voice and what we have now, is that the Voice being independent of government means that any advice it gives, whether acted upon or not is on the record. Also being independent means that it can advocate without interference because the government cannot suppress any advice like it can do with an internal department, and because it's constitutionally enshrined it can't be conveniently merged into another department, and/ or have some politically expedient department heads parachuted in by the government of the day.

 

[Haakon]

Because what the voice claims to do can already be done with what's in place now. It's onyl an advisory board so as per usual it can be ignored so i don't really see the point in having it.

Whenever I've brought this up the yes people usually just ignore me or make childish comments.

So I guess it’s safe to say you don’t know, so you’re voting no…

 

[Dozer]

So I guess it’s safe to say you don’t know, so you’re voting no…

This is the case for for those that maybe don't understand a lot of the fancy words getting chucked around on the avenues they could look up trying to find the answer to what this thing is all about. Voting reflects your decision and understanding of the literature presented to you, a ton of society will vote no on this because they can't get a clear picture of what they're actually voting for or against. This doesn't mean they're racist, doesn't mean they're shit humans, doesn't mean people that vote the opposite to them can scoff and turn their heads away rolling their eyes assuming that they're a superior human being.
People who don't understand will vote no.