Comments by "" (@pwillis1589) on "‘Puts to bed the nonsense of Dutton and Barnaby Joyce’: PM reveals Voice advice" video.

No factually incorrect. All 24 pages of his advice have been released. Provide evidence of you claim. Cite the sentence or paragraph that has been amended by the government.
7
So now the legal advice has crushed your entire argument what have you got?
4
@Lee-cc9jf You fundamentally misunderstand independent legal advice the solicitor general provides to the government. Your opinion is factually wrong.
3
So exactly what legal training do you have to opinion the exact opposite to the Solicitor generals advice to the government?
3
You fundamentally misunderstand legislated advisory bodies and the difference to a constitutional one.
2
Except the legal advice says it will enhance our democracy. What legal training do you have that would support your opinion over the Solicitor generals?
2
@dlbeck2023 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
2
And once again as I asked for 1 day ago provide the evidence for this totally unsubstantiated claim. Just reference the sentence or paragraphs the government changed in the SG statement. This is a simple request. Put up or shut up.
2
@christinebell37 Nobody is disputing that fact, but the No case insist it will happen and be successful. The legal advice is it won't. The Yes case accepts the fact that a case may come before the courts but the legal advice is it won't be successful.
2
Except the legal advice entirely contradicts your argument.
2
@dorianshadesofgray It’s not what I say it is what the independent legal advice from the solicitor general says. What is your legal expertise? I merely agree with the solicitor general.
2
@DanielSMatthews No you are factually wrong. Do you wish me to send you a list of people and organisations that currently have access to the executive. It is very long. As a quick example GIna Rinheart has direct access to the cabinet via Barnaby Joyce. British Tobacco pay millions to lobby the Health minister. The National Farmers federation virtually have a direct line to the minister for Agriculture. These are all voices.
2
@Design_no Did you just suggest the ALP has a voice to the Labor Government or in a slightly less polite manner WTF are you talking about?The Labor party was founded as a political wing of the unions and the Union movement has and still remains a heavy influence on the ALP. I would have thought this is common public knowledge and need not be explained, but yes for you I will make an exception. Currently right now the union movement with a Labor federal government and 6 state and Territory governments probably has more of a voice than most.
2
@dorianshadesofgray Just to be clear, enshrining a voice in the constitution doesn't divide people by race. There is only one race of humans currently in existence. What a voice provides is an advisory body only to the executive and parliament. It has no veto power, no legislative capability, and no financial delegation. It will provide an apolitical voice on behalf of the original inhabitants of this country who were ignored at Federation and that's it. The constitution has been amended 8 times not only once, but the essence of your point is correct, it is a not a common practice and proposals have in the vast majority been knocked back, but I fail to see if it does get up and it fails miserably why you think the Australian people would not vote for it to be dissolved in another referendum. Are you concerned it might actually work?
2
Just as a matter of information a referendum is not required for the government to have a treaty. It might decide to have a plebiscite to gauge public opinion but it is not requirement either, It could claim a mandate from its election and providing it had the numbers in the parliament legislate one.Same for a Makarrata.
2
@annviolet4727 A referendum is required to change the constitution to insert a clause that will create an advisory body. Exactly the same way there are clauses to create the ADF and the High court. There can be no racial divide as there is only one race of humans in existence so I’m not sure what you are on about there. The original indigenous inhabitants of this country were ignored at Federation, now is the time to recognise them in our constitution with a modest proposal.
2
@Xunt-n2j Thankyou for your honest and revealing answer.
2
@Xunt-n2j But when whisky gamer agrees with you with a thumbs up emoji that's OK?
2
@WitchDoctor-m9s Constitutionally enshrined is needed to square the books.
1
@kellysouter4381 As an old retired soldier I like to think so.
1
No problem. If Britain had done that. If they had of declared victory and conquered Australia, then as per British law a treaty needed to be negotiated. So clearly you are in favour of a treaty. Good on you.
1
@Design_no No it most certainly didn’t. The constitution most certainly did not mention in any way the settling/invading/conquering of this country. Happy for you to fact check me on this by providing a reference to the relevant section of our constitution.
1
@Design_no You aren’t following the thread real close are you. I introduced nothing qutlaw made the comment about conquering Australia. I merely pointed out that if it did it came with legal responsibilities. Something you don’t understand.
1
@dlbeck2023 If you read my previous post it clearly states what the Solicitor General says about any possible high court action.
1
Nice slur, which gutter did you climb out of?
1
“Many” is an exaggeration. There are a few and they are outweighed by the vast majority including two High Court judges.
1
@dorianshadesofgray Again in your question you mis-state the truth. What can be inserted into the constitution can be removed from the constitution. As evidence section 127 was repealed by the 67 referendum. Now restate your question.
1
@Design_no Please enlighten me, what am I ignorant of?
1
@kellyduncan4810 Can't handle robust discussions heh, such a snowflake.
1
@Gungho1a Factually incorrect, by legislation the Solicitor General is bound by law to provide his independent opinion. On a side note he was appointed by a LNP government.
1
@edwardbec9844 Your comment is what ifs of gobblegook. A high court judge told Susan Ley her question about the Voice cancellation of ANZAC day was unsubstantiated garbage, and so is your opinion. On average the high court deals with 70 constitutional matters a year. Are you suggesting Indigenous peoples opinion should not carry the same weight as everybody else, because it sounds like that is exactly what you are suggesting one law for us and no avenue for indigenous people to state their opinion.
1
@Gungho1a Your comment would make a modicum of sense except the current SG was appointed by a LNP government in 2017. You just didn't like his opinion so you make up shit to attack the messenger. Typical RWNJ snowflake.
1
Probably ex PM Abbott or Turnbull. He has been in the job since 2017.
1
@chapposa You would have to explain in greater detail than that to convince me the Solicitor general of Australia is corrupt. I don’t know he may well be but I always have facts to backup my claims.
1
@chapposa That is just a really sad world view which as you rightly point out you are perfectly entitled to.
1
Only Turnbull, Joyce, Hanson, and the list goes on.
1
@tb7667 Both have described the voice as a third chamber of parliament. That is a veto power.
1
@annviolet4727 The 1901 immigration restriction act implemented by the Protectionist Party of Australia is indeed a massive racist blot on this country, never repealed and was supported by all sides of government until the 70s including Labor. This racist act of parliament was enabled by our inherently racist constitution. You may wish this to remain so but loaded language of segregation, victims, and elites has been repeatedly shown to be false. Be honest what is your real issue with constitutional recognition for indigenous people?
1
@annviolet4727 And your evidence of this claim is?
1
@annviolet4727 So your evidence of a wedge and what you really meant to say was that there are different opinions on the issue. Well welcome to a liberal democracy. Which particular totalitarian state did you move from. In Australia we encourage debate, don't be such a snowflake.
1
Poor old Designo can’t even get his data correct. The NIAA and direct funding to indigenous groups federally is $4.2 billion annually. They haven’t researched anything to get such a basic fact wrong shows the only talking he is doing is out of his lower colon.
1