Comments by "" (@pwillis1589) on "Current Voice proposal a ‘difficult model to accept’" video.

  1. Yeah like the SG report which clearly disproves any No argument. Claiming there are hidden details is just pathetic scaremongering. You have no argument so you attempt to appeal to emotion.
    1
  2.  @daniellebcooper7160  Exactly what I would expect from someone with no argument and who doesn’t like the independent advice.
    1
  3.  @daniellebcooper7160  As far as I am aware Chris’s opinion on the voice is his own work and is a important contribution to the debate.
    1
  4. The solicitor-general is Australia’s second highest-ranking law officer, after the attorney-general. However, while the attorney-general is a political position filled by a member of parliament, the solicitor-general is independent. Their job is to provide independent legal advice to the government and represent the Commonwealth in legal proceedings. The solicitor-general was asked to advise the government on two questions. whether the proposed amendment is compatible with Australia’s system of government and whether the proposed amendment gives parliament the power to decide the legal effect of any representation, or whether parliament and the executive are required to consider or follow those representations. What does the advice say? Question 1 The solicitor-general was very clear. The Voice “would not pose any threat” to our system of government. In fact, it would “enhance” our system. Donaghue reached this conclusion for two reasons. First, the Voice does not alter the powers of parliament or government in any way. Section 129(2) makes clear the Voice has no veto. Section 129(2) also does not impose any obligation on parliament or the executive to consult with the Voice or follow its advice. Second, more fundamentally, the Voice would remedy a “distortion” in our system of government. The solicitor-general explained that the Voice would help overcome “barriers that have historically impeded effective participation by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in political discussions and decisions that affect them”. In short, it would improve our democracy by ensuring Indigenous people can have their voices heard. Question 2 The second question was directed at the scope of the Voice’s power. It asked whether the parliament or executive would be required to consider or follow representations made by the Voice. Once again, the solicitor-general was very clear: the answer is no. Donaghue explained that although it would “plainly be desirable for the Executive Government to consider any representations that the Voice makes to it”, parliament has the ultimate say. This means parliament could enact a law to require ministers or public servants take the advice of the Voice into account when making decisions. However, parliament could always amend or remove such a requirement. The Voice is subject to parliament
    1
  5. Now this is a good question and while it isn’t an argument it is a legitimate question. Because a constitutional enshrined voice recognises prior occupation and awards indigenous people an equal say at the table. Quite simple really.
    1
  6.  @actualfacts1055  political representation and the right to vote are not the same as constitutional recognition which everyone universally agrees indigenous people do not have. It is so acknowledged that we had a referendum in 1999 to insert a preamble that recognised indigenous people as Australia's first people. It was defeated. Once again it is universally accepted as common public knowledge that indigenous people are not recognises by our current constitution. A Voice does exactly that. A seat at a table with the rest of the rabble.
    1
  7.  @actualfacts1055  Nope, got nothing to do with Albo whatsoever. Albo literally had nothing to do with the 9 years of discussion, consultations, and debates that resulted in the drafting of Uluru statement from the Heart. A request by the indigenous people of Australia for a conversation. Treaty, Voice, Makaratta. All you have now is some vague conspiracy theory about some vague attempts of a power grab. Chuck that out there in the public domain and see how it flies.
    1
  8. In reality this news article has had about 1000 views in a couple of hours, if you no voters really think you are in the majority, good luck to you.
    1