Australian Politics: The Albanese Times

[a_unique_person]

https://www.theguardian.com/australi...droidApp_Other

Quote:

The Liberal MP Julian Leeser has warned that the American-style politics at the heart of the anti-voice campaign are “damaging the shared project that is Australia” and raised fears about a lack of empathy for Indigenous people.

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by a_unique_person

Lawyers have been working on Jan fire centuries.

You have excelled in meaninglessness.

[a_unique_person]

Originally Posted by psionl0

You have excelled in meaninglessness.

Lawyers have been working on law for centuries. It didn't mean the end of the world. Land rights has involved many law cases. Australia struggled on, I know, but it's still here.

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by psionl0

. . . or reformed or replaced or neutered.

The problem then becomes whether necessary reforms can be done without triggering court cases. (And don't quote individual lawyers).

And your argument is once again "what if a future government does something bad?"

And the answer is still this: if a future government does something bad, then we can vote it out and put in a government who will do something better. That's how democracy works.

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

And your argument is once again "what if a future government does something bad?"

You are willfully constructing strawman arguments now.

It should be obvious that my point is that the amendment won't stop a future government doing something good or bad (but it may bring in more lawyers if the government tries).

[Orphia Nay]

Q&A poll:

52% Yes
42% No
6% Unsure

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by a_unique_person

Lawyers have been working on law for centuries. It didn't mean the end of the world. Land rights has involved many law cases. Australia struggled on, I know, but it's still here.

That is just rubbish.

Paul Keating's Native Title Act (1993) saw competing Native Title claims being taken to the courts and for years, the litigation was such that not a single title was granted.

There should be no place for a law that is so poorly written that it takes court case after court case to decide what the law means.

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by psionl0

You are willfully constructing strawman arguments now.

It should be obvious that my point is that the amendment won't stop a future government doing something good or bad (but it may bring in more lawyers if the government tries).

It's not supposed to. All the constitutional amendment does is ensure that there is a body to advise parliament on issues relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. What that means is up to parliament, but there is one thing that parliament cannot do, and that is abolish it. Not without another referendum.

It would be equally valid to say "But what if parliament does something good? What if this really is the way to address the wrongs done to ATSI peoples? Isn't it worth voting Yes for then?"

"What if" isn't an argument I make, because I don't think it's a good argument. It doesn't matter whether it takes the form of "what if bad" and "what if good". Both are irrelevant to me. The main argument I make is that the status quo is not working. Time to do something new.

[a_unique_person]

Originally Posted by psionl0

You are willfully constructing strawman arguments now.

It should be obvious that my point is that the amendment won't stop a future government doing something good or bad (but it may bring in more lawyers if the government tries).

Democracy always puts the fear into a government when it creates any legislation. This isn't some novel nuclear bomb that is going to be unleashed.

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

The main argument I make is that the status quo is not working. Time to do something new.

We have had 9 years of a Lib/NP government. Do you really think that they would have set up something decent if this amendment was in place?

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by psionl0

We have had 9 years of a Lib/NP government. Do you really think that they would have set up something decent if this amendment was in place?

No, obviously I don't. They would have had to set up something, though. And if that something weren't decent, it could be modified by future governments.

The thing that you paint as a negative - that good legislation may be borked by future governments - also has a flip side, which is that bad legislation may be fixed by future governments.

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

No, obviously I don't. They would have had to set up something, though. And if that something weren't decent, it could be modified by future governments.

The thing that you paint as a negative - that good legislation may be borked by future governments - also has a flip side, which is that bad legislation may be fixed by future governments.

IOW this constitutional amendment doesn't make an iota of difference.

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by psionl0

IOW this constitutional amendment doesn't make an iota of difference.

It does. It mandates the existence of a Voice. With it, there will never again be no Voice, unless a future government has another referendum to abolish it.

[arthwollipot]

In the interest of fairness, here is an argument for No that actually has some merit, in my opinion:

Blak Sovereign Movement No campaigners push for treaty instead of Voice

Quote:

While the prime minister has deflected questions about a national treaty, some Indigenous sovereign No campaigners want Australia to talk about it.

Elders, activists, academics and community workers have come together to campaign against the Voice under the banner of the Blak Sovereign Movement (BSM).

Indigenous sovereign activism has its roots in the 1970s and recently shot to national prominence after Independent senator Lidia Thorpe split from the Greens earlier this year.

BSM supporters such as lawyer and activist Michael Mansell want to skip the Voice and go straight to treaty.

"We are being asked to recognise the legitimacy of the white constitution, and in the most meaningless way," Mr Mansell told 7.30.

"A treaty confers rights on Aboriginal people and imposes obligations on all governments. A Voice does not confer any rights and doesn't impose any obligations," he said.

Other BSM supporters such as academic and writer Chelsea Watego argue that the Voice, as an advisory body to the parliament, would be powerless.

"I resent the fact that settlers get to decide what is in our best interests," Ms Watego told 7.30.

"You don't have to be [an] historian to know that, as a strategy, that has failed us as a people."

"There's something to be said about maintaining the rage."

I think that if the referendum fails to pass, a treaty is going to need to be considered.

[Orphia Nay]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

In the interest of fairness, here is an argument for No that actually has some merit, in my opinion:

Blak Sovereign Movement No campaigners push for treaty instead of Voice

I think that if the referendum fails to pass, a treaty is going to need to be considered.

1. Are the Blak Sovereign Movements (BSM) "sovereign citizens" (conspiracy theorists)? Just nervous about the name.

2. And the link says more state-based treaty organisations (like Victoria's First People's Assembly) are on the way. But I still think a national body would be necessary to mediate or facilitate the state resolutions with parliament.

[a_unique_person]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

In the interest of fairness, here is an argument for No that actually has some merit, in my opinion:

Blak Sovereign Movement No campaigners push for treaty instead of Voice

I think that if the referendum fails to pass, a treaty is going to need to be considered.

It's a false dichotomy.

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by Orphia Nay

1. Are the Blak Sovereign Movements (BSM) "sovereign citizens" (conspiracy theorists)? Just nervous about the name.

No, it's nothing like that. The Blak Sovereign Movement seeks sovereignty for indigenous nations - ie, self-determination. The Aboriginal Tent Embassy (on the lawns of Old Parliament House since 1972) has had a large "Sovereignty" sign up for years, and they now have a banner promoting No to the referendum.

Originally Posted by Orphia Nay

2. And the link says more state-based treaty organisations (like Victoria's First People's Assembly) are on the way. But I still think a national body would be necessary to mediate or facilitate the state resolutions with parliament.

I completely agree. State governments and the Federal government have different jurisdictions, and I think treaties would need to be made with all of them.

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

It does. It mandates the existence of a Voice. With it, there will never again be no Voice, unless a future government has another referendum to abolish it.

GOTO 1679

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by psionl0

GOTO 1679

...and your argument that the Voice necessarily gets tangled with the High Court, which I have refuted many times previously by citing legal experts.

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

...and your argument that the Voice necessarily gets tangled with the High Court, which I have refuted many times previously by citing cherry picking legal experts.

ftfy.

[a_unique_person]

Quote:

Qantas has dismissed suggestions its support for the Indigenous voice referendum was tied to the government’s decision to block extra Qatar Airways flights into Australia, saying the claims advanced by no campaign supporters have “no basis in fact”.

Qantas’s denial, made in a submission to a Senate inquiry, came the same day the opposition leader, Peter Dutton, alleged without evidence at a press conference that the former Qantas boss Alan Joyce had told the government not to alter the wording of the constitutional amendment.

The No case reaches peak insanity.

[a_unique_person]

Dup