THE Albanese Government is feeding false “talking points” to Voice activists in an effort to trick voters to blindly support its constitutional amendment.
Leftist legal academics have cued up behind the Prime Minister’s reassurances that the Voice changes would ultimately be benign.
- Government must stop playing clever and tricky political games by withholding detail.
- Albanese must clarify the definition of aboriginality to determine who can serve.
- PM responds, saying people are over cheap culture war stunts.
Although many details have been withheld by Mr Albanese, it is understood the proposed amendments would extend veto power to a tiny number of Aboriginal Australians, allowing them a final say on any federal legislation impacting indigenous communities.
Given Aboriginals are first and foremost Australians, it has been argued that all legislation would impact them.
COVER
Running cover for Mr Albanese, however, law professor George Williams assured voters prior to Christmas that “there is no requirement that the Voice be listened to before a decision is made.
“Decisions can be made without the Voice having its say and indeed the Voice can be ignored if parliament and the executive decide to do so,” he continued.
According to former ABC Board member and columnist for The Australian newspaper, Janet Albrechtsen, such “reassurances” appear to be scripted.
“Fellow academic Shireen Morris and lawyer Mark Leibler – both ardent Yes campaigners – made similar claims before Christmas,” she wrote this week.
“Did they all get the same memo asking them to, by orchestrated response, discredit the concerns raised.
“My view, and that of constitutional silks I have spoken to, remains that same: Yes activists who claim there is no duty to consult a race-based Voice are wrong, because this ignores the power of the High Court to draw any necessary inferences from the actual words of the amendment.”
UP FRONT
In a letter to the Prime Minister yesterday, Liberal leader Peter Dutton called on Mr Albanese to be up front with Australian voters.
“A constitutionally enshrined Voice to Parliament will be a body without precedent and a significant change in how Australia is governed,” Mr Dutton wrote.
“All voting Australians have a right to make a fully informed decision when considering an issue as significant as changing our constitution.”
Mr Dutton said the Prime Minister was treating Australians “like mugs” by rushing through a referendum without providing details.
“The Government must stop playing clever and tricky political games by withholding detail,” he said.
Mr Dutton produced a list of 15 questions he would like answered prior to a Voice referendum being held.
These included:
- Will the Government clarify the definition of aboriginality to determine who can serve.
- What are its functions and powers?
- Is it purely advisory, or will it have decision-making capabilities?
- Who will oversee the body and ensure it is accountable?
Mr Albanese responded via social media to Mr Dutton’s letter, posting “People are over cheap culture war stunts”.PC
I just have some questions concerning the proposal: –
It’s a pity that transparency so valued by Mr Albanese does not extend to fairness and equality.
Is the Labor proposal for The Voice so lacking in ethics that they chose to skewer the referendum by not presenting any detail, by not providing Yes and No arguments to the electorate and likewise funding for both arguments?
How many people will sit on The Voice “advisory panel” ?
How will suitable candidates to The Voice be elected or will they be selected?
Who will be able to vote in any election? Would Bruce Pascoe be eligible to vote?
Will rural representatives be outnumbered by urban representatives?
People who have the temerity to ask such questions are labelled by Mr Albanese in derogatory terms, demonstrating when you have no argument, you play the man.
When considering the “Aborigine Industry” of many well educated activists, many of whom were university students during the 1960s and later years, the “voice” is very clearly an attempt to restart the ATSIC gravy train the left have never forgiven the Howard Coalition Government for abolishing, ignoring the fact that Labor established ATSIC but supported the decision to abolish ATSIC after reading the reports of lack of governance and corruption involved. In fact at that time Labor said that if they had been in government they would have done what the Coalition decided to do.
ATSIVoice of air conditioned Canberra based bureaucrats must not be supported.
There are approximately 100,000 Aborigine Australians who are direct descendants and most live in country areas including the communities, they are not one tribe or clan, they are many tribes and have many language barriers and traditions. They have a very long history of disagreements between tribal groups and today cultural differences are arguably the main issue and next poor education but that too is a cultural based lack of interest in education.
Of course we must try to help all disadvantaged fellow Australians but I doubt that the elite educated multicultural part Aborigines can do much from a Canberra office complex.
It would be interesting to read an article explaining the national and the international politics behind “First Nations” lobbying.
Despite the scripted words of Albanese’s law professors , Albanese himself said and it is on record that it would be a brave PM and Government that would ignore The Voice. Says it all really!! and Janet Albrechtsen could not have put it better in her critique of the proposed amendment.
The Voice is ATSIC revisited except, because it will be enshrined in the Constitution, parliament will have no power to dismantle it like they did with ATSIC when its corruption became over-whelming.
Linda Burney let the cat out of the bag:
“What we are talking about here is a permanent Voice that no government, like they did to ATSIC, can be got rid of,” she said.
https://nit.com.au/02-08-2022/3586/linda-burney-promises-release-of-indigenous-voice-details-before-referendum
Dividing people and destroying equality, the basic tenet of Australian democracy, is the aim of communism; and the people behind the Voice are communists.
Diversion from Labor. Bread and Circuses. Albo fiddles while AU burns.
Like many I support 100% the arguments and reservations that well known and regarded commentators have taken on questioning the Voice, (eg. Chris Merrit, Janet Albrechtsen, James Allan, Jacinta Price), but for me there is one (practical) clincher: – –
Recently (in The Australian) there were lengthy submissions by Kenneth Hayne and Ian Callinan. Hayne using technical legal argument and analysis to promote the Voice, Callinan using technical legal argument and analysis to contradict Hayne and argue against the Voice.
Both men highly experienced, competent, and well respected former Justices of the High Court.
If the above exceptional calibre ex-High Court Justices have such polar differences as to the legitimacy and viability of the Voice it conclusively proves the Voice will be an on-going litigious, fractious, expensive, unworkable mess and nightmare. (in my view).
And thus, lost in the continual legal fracas’ (there will be many, and ongoing), and as per Jacinta Nampijinpa Price’s honest thrust, the Voice will be totally incapable of achieving any worthwhile improvement in real aboriginal disadvantage.
(PS. And note, in reply to Peter Dutton’s perfectly reasonable, sensible, and rational questions, Albanese refers them as “cheap culture war stunts”. I seriously suggest when referring to Albanese, Politicom just call him “Shonky”).
Seems to me that Noel Jones (see below) and his comrades on the left are the real hypocrites. They want to make Australia a racist country by enshrining the Voice into our constitution. This would be a form of apartheid – legally distinguishing one racial group from the others. The referendum must and certainly will fail because most of us can see the proposed Voice for what it is – leftist virtue-signaling of the very worst kind.
Opponents of the voice are generally monarchists, who believe an English king should reign over Australia, based on their genes and bloodline and breeding…
…but who claim empowering aboriginal Australians is racist.
What disgusting hypocrites.
Aboriginal Australians already have many voices to Parliament: a Prime Minister’s Indigenous Advisory Council, more than 30 Aboriginal Land Councils, more than 2,700 Aboriginal corporations and the Council of Peaks, representing 70 top Aboriginal organisations.
More importantly, 11 Federal Politicians now identify as Aboriginal. That’s nearly 5 per cent of MPs, when Aborigines make up no more than 3.7 per cent of our population.
Andrew Bolt
Repeat but always ignored: Commonwealth of Australia, Federation of States, Constitutional Monarchy.
Head of State not mentioned in the Constitution but clearly the Governor General has that responsibility shared with the Monarch under certain circumstances.
Republicans started the Head of State questioning as part of their list of emotional blackmail based campaigning, deception.