Australian Politics: The Albanese Times - Page 21

catsmate · 2nd June 2023, 10:52 AM

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

I didn't see a thread about this specifically. Perhaps there should have been.

Ben Roberts-Smith loses mammoth defamation battle against newspapers, reporters

So it's true. He's a war criminal and a scumbag.

Over in SI&CE. http://www.internationalskeptics.com...d.php?t=366260

Wildy · 3rd June 2023, 01:40 AM

Originally Posted by psionl0

The problem is that the Solicitor General is not a High Court judge and can't predict how they would rule on a dispute between the Aboriginal community and the government.

When it comes to issues involving Parliament the SG cites court cases showing how the HCA has ruled in previous cases. Why is it wrong to assume that the HCA will continue to apply the precedent in these cases? Why would you expect the HCA to suddenly ignore over a century of precedent simply because the petitioners are Indigenous?

Quote:

Albo could have short circuited this by inserting the words "non binding representations" in the proposed section 129(ii). Instead he dug his heels in and claimed that the opposition isn't genuine about their criticisms. Although this is true, there are many other Australians who are concerned about the wording of the change and Albo has disregarded them completely.

Why are you assuming that advice given by the Voice would be binding?

psionl0 · 4th June 2023, 08:34 PM

Originally Posted by Wildy

When it comes to issues involving Parliament the SG cites court cases showing how the HCA has ruled in previous cases.

There is no precedent for the constitution giving indigenous people a voice. This would be entirely new territory for the High Court.

Originally Posted by Wildy

Why are you assuming that advice given by the Voice would be binding?

Why are you assuming that the representations are not binding? That is one of the questions the HC would have to deal with if a constitutional challenge is made. Why not spell it out so that there is no risk?

lionking · Yesterday, 01:36 AM

Originally Posted by psionl0

There is no precedent for the constitution giving indigenous people a voice. This would be entirely new territory for the High Court.

Why are you assuming that the representations are not binding? That is one of the questions the HC would have to deal with if a constitutional challenge is made. Why not spell it out so that there is no risk?

Albo will remain silent until it is too late. Already polling shows the Yes vote is weakening. Given the peculiarities of referenda, even if polling stays steady I doubt we will see a majority in a majority of states.

Wildy · Yesterday, 11:09 PM

Originally Posted by psionl0

There is no precedent for the constitution giving indigenous people a voice. This would be entirely new territory for the High Court.

How would the constitution granting the Voice the right to make representations to government be "new territory" on cases based on decisions made by Parliament or the Executive government? Why would prior precedent not apply here?

I can see it if there was a case where the Voice was prevented from make a representation, but not if they had made a representation and the government didn't follow the advice given.

Quote:

Why are you assuming that the representations are not binding? That is one of the questions the HC would have to deal with if a constitutional challenge is made. Why not spell it out so that there is no risk?

Because it's an advisory body. Government hears advice from a bunch of different groups. They may even ask for advice in certain matters. None of that is binding on the Government to follow, if it were we wouldn't be having a Royal Commission into Robodebt because they would have been bound by the legal advice saying it was unlawful.

Why would I expect this new advisory body to be any different from previous advisory bodies in this matter?

For some reason you seem to think that the advice from the Voice will be binding, and because of that you want the wording changed based on this unknown reason. The thing is that I honestly can't see the leap between "Constitution will say that the Voice is required to exist and can give advice to government" and "Any advice given by the Voice will be legally binding".

2nd June 2023, 10:52 AM	#801
catsmate No longer the 1 Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 28,613	Originally Posted by arthwollipot I didn't see a thread about this specifically. Perhaps there should have been. Ben Roberts-Smith loses mammoth defamation battle against newspapers, reporters So it's true. He's a war criminal and a scumbag. Over in SI&CE. http://www.internationalskeptics.com...d.php?t=366260
	__________________ As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves.

3rd June 2023, 01:40 AM	#802
Wildy Adelaidean Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Australia Posts: 11,715	Originally Posted by psionl0 The problem is that the Solicitor General is not a High Court judge and can't predict how they would rule on a dispute between the Aboriginal community and the government. When it comes to issues involving Parliament the SG cites court cases showing how the HCA has ruled in previous cases. Why is it wrong to assume that the HCA will continue to apply the precedent in these cases? Why would you expect the HCA to suddenly ignore over a century of precedent simply because the petitioners are Indigenous? Quote: Albo could have short circuited this by inserting the words "non binding representations" in the proposed section 129(ii). Instead he dug his heels in and claimed that the opposition isn't genuine about their criticisms. Although this is true, there are many other Australians who are concerned about the wording of the change and Albo has disregarded them completely. Why are you assuming that advice given by the Voice would be binding?
	__________________

4th June 2023, 08:34 PM	#803
psionl0 Skeptical about skeptics Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E Posts: 20,170	Originally Posted by Wildy When it comes to issues involving Parliament the SG cites court cases showing how the HCA has ruled in previous cases. There is no precedent for the constitution giving indigenous people a voice. This would be entirely new territory for the High Court. Originally Posted by Wildy Why are you assuming that advice given by the Voice would be binding? Why are you assuming that the representations are not binding? That is one of the questions the HC would have to deal with if a constitutional challenge is made. Why not spell it out so that there is no risk?
	__________________ "The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975

Yesterday, 01:36 AM	#804
lionking In the Peanut Gallery Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Melbourne Posts: 53,479	Originally Posted by psionl0 There is no precedent for the constitution giving indigenous people a voice. This would be entirely new territory for the High Court. Why are you assuming that the representations are not binding? That is one of the questions the HC would have to deal with if a constitutional challenge is made. Why not spell it out so that there is no risk? Albo will remain silent until it is too late. Already polling shows the Yes vote is weakening. Given the peculiarities of referenda, even if polling stays steady I doubt we will see a majority in a majority of states.
	__________________ A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. Sir Winston Churchill

Yesterday, 11:09 PM	#805
Wildy Adelaidean Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Australia Posts: 11,715	Originally Posted by psionl0 There is no precedent for the constitution giving indigenous people a voice. This would be entirely new territory for the High Court. How would the constitution granting the Voice the right to make representations to government be "new territory" on cases based on decisions made by Parliament or the Executive government? Why would prior precedent not apply here? I can see it if there was a case where the Voice was prevented from make a representation, but not if they had made a representation and the government didn't follow the advice given. Quote: Why are you assuming that the representations are not binding? That is one of the questions the HC would have to deal with if a constitutional challenge is made. Why not spell it out so that there is no risk? Because it's an advisory body. Government hears advice from a bunch of different groups. They may even ask for advice in certain matters. None of that is binding on the Government to follow, if it were we wouldn't be having a Royal Commission into Robodebt because they would have been bound by the legal advice saying it was unlawful. Why would I expect this new advisory body to be any different from previous advisory bodies in this matter? For some reason you seem to think that the advice from the Voice will be binding, and because of that you want the wording changed based on this unknown reason. The thing is that I honestly can't see the leap between "Constitution will say that the Voice is required to exist and can give advice to government" and "Any advice given by the Voice will be legally binding".
	__________________